Blog description.

Accentuating the Liberal in Classical Liberal: Advocating Ascendency of the Individual & a Politick & Literature to Fight the Rise & Rise of the Tax Surveillance State. 'Illigitum non carborundum'.

Liberty and freedom are two proud words that have been executed from the political lexicon: they were frog marched and stood before a wall of blank minds, then forcibly blindfolded, and shot, with the whimpering staccato of ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’ resounding over and over. And not only did this atrocity go unreported by journalists in the mainstream media, they were in the firing squad.

The premise of this blog is simple: the Soviets thought they had equality, and welfare from cradle to grave, until the illusory free lunch of redistribution took its inevitable course, and cost them everything they had. First to go was their privacy, after that their freedom, then on being ground down to an equality of poverty only, for many of them their lives as they tried to escape a life behind the Iron Curtain. In the state-enforced common good, was found only slavery to the prison of each other's mind; instead of the caring state, they had imposed the surveillance state to keep them in line. So why are we accumulating a national debt to build the slave state again in the West? Where is the contrarian, uncomfortable literature to put the state experiment finally to rest?

Comments Policy: I'm not moderating comments, so keep it sane and go away with the spam. Government officials please read disclaimer at bottom of page.

Saturday, December 15, 2012

The Connecticut School Shooting ... A Question.

Yet another violent, senseless tragedy. I want to pose just one question that I believe I understand the answer to in ‘big part’, it’s what this blug is about, but don’t ‘quite’ grok entirely.

Read the second and third paragraphs of my by-line above, then consider this:

So many of these shootings, in the US at least, occur in schools: the bastion of the progressive, political Left, program. Perhaps we start by figuring that out? Because there is a valid connection, and 'something' deeply significant in this.

For the record I despise guns and the sickening culture that goes with guns, I won't allow a gun in my house, but it is not the guns, or gun laws (including lack of) that is the cause of these tragedies; it’s the culture behind the gun. And so to lead you down the line my thought is taking, finally, consider the question I have posed above, in the context of one of my favourite quotations found over 2012. From pages 77 and 94-95 of David Schmidtz’s contribution to David Schmidtz’s and Robert E. Goodin’s important 1998 book, Social Welfare and Individual Responsibility: For and Against:

If communitarians are right to say Western society has been atomized, then surely one of the causes has been the state’s penchant for making itself (rather than the community) the primary focus of public life….

What explains market society’s unparalleled success in helping people to prosper? The key, I have argued, lies in background institutions, especially property institutions, that lead people to take responsibility for their own welfare….

The welfare state would have made people better off if it had led neighbors to rely on each other and on themselves, but it seems to have done the opposite.

Disaffected youth, mental illness, the myriad of causes leading to the alienation that will have led to this, can only be improved by stronger, inclusive and self-reliant families and communities that attend to and 'take in' their disaffected, but ironically, stronger families and communities are what have been weakened by a burgeoning welfare state, and the ethic that the state must be the first call and final enforcer in our every relationship and transaction. Something goes wrong around us now, and we ring the council, or CYPS, or whatever government agency is set up for that particular thing, then we go about our lives and forget about it: the state will deal with it.

It doesn't work.

Upon this disintegration of the self-reliant community built of responsible individuals, mental health issues have become a gun unto us all.

Update 1:

Here's how healthy debate is shut down by null-minded, emoting blackmail. From Twitter:

 That's tasteful of you to mint political coins out of little children dying. 

My response:

  What offensive BS. I'm not allowed to raise a legitimate question? We just go on shooting? You're beyond contempt.

I've not seen one tweet from Saarinen - whom unsurprisingly I seem to remember is somehow involved with the MSM for his work - attacking those advocating the 'political coin' of gun control that is filling up Twitter this morning - his concern is selective, apparently. Our society desperately needs to be thinking - thinking, as opposed to emoting - about these issues, and beyond the simplistic solutions such as gun control laws: because the problems here go much deeper than how easy it is to buy a gun - it's about philosophy, it always is. And I'll never stop asking questions I see as important in the face of emoting bullies, because I want to live in a decent society where this does not happen. Questioning causes in the face of this is more important than the politics of point scoring such as Saarinen has tried to silence me with. Those of us not personally involved with the tragedy, are the ones who can now make the dispassionate analysis that is sorely needed regarding that growing, disaffected, part of our society at the heart of such sad incidents.

Update 2:

@juhasaarinen's latest tweet to me was  for me to, quote, FOAD. This was after he tweeted a 'politicised' link relating to this event, and I called him on the double standard. I had no idea what FOAD meant, and as it ended up,  that was because it's something I would never say to a complete stranger with whom I was debating ideas: it means (sorry mum, swearing coming) Fuck Off And Die.

The Left, we're going to make you care, or else ... you can FOAD - (yeah right).

As a peacenik classical liberal, myself, who believes passionately in the non-initiation of force principle as the constitutional foundation for the free, voluntary society, I will never understand a mind like this. As I will never understand the cruel contradiction which is the brutality that underlies all Left politics.

Though Saarinen's real problem lay with his profession: an event like this is precisely the time to question everything about the direction Western society is traveling in. What's the alternative? To wait a fortnight when it's disappeared from the MSM and the world has forgotten about it?

What's the purpose and rationale of the MSM, if not this?

Plus Whaleoil has made a good point this morning about MSM journos slamming bloggers for daring to give an opinion on this shooting, while their own employers are filling front pages with it. It's called hypocrisy.


  1. "It's about philosophy."
    FWIW, I think it's a lot simpler than that.
    A lot of the shootings occur in schools because (unfortunately) they have a lot of defenceless people in them.

    America has a population of well over 300 million people. Given that, there will be quite a lot of very nasty, evil, unhinged people there. It is easy to see that the odds are quite high that you'll get an incident like this in any given year.

    I really do think it's that simple. High population, lots of crazies, lots of guns.

    1. Possibly Thor, although the shootings to date, from Columbine, have been mainly disaffected youth with some type of imaginary axe to grind with the school/education institution concerned. I don't know about this one, although one of the dead was the gunman's mother, a teacher.

  2. You might be right that it is the culture that creates the violence and not the gun laws, given than gun laws have not really changed but the gun violence has, but if you are correct, changing the culture seems outside the control of government. Even a libertarian state could develop a toxic sub-culture.

    I am also mindful that most of America is populated by pleasant people going about their lives, the gun crazies are a tiny minority. So I am not sure what the answer is.

    I like the NZ approach. If you want to own a gun you can, so long as you can show you are not a lunatic. Strikes me as the perfect application of limited government. This might be hard to implement in the US given the level of unregulated guns in circulation though.

    1. What I've not touched on is how bad the underlying culture is: as Lindsay Perigo calls it, generation airhead, and I think there is a lot of truth in his piece on it:

      I am instinctively against gun laws, though don't disagree with your final paragraph, while the violent entitlement culture rules.

      (How many weeks do you take off over Xmas?)

  3. Replies
    1. Yay. We're going up to the Sounds for a month, but I'll have to work for much of it.