We must punish those who didn’t do it!
Zero Aggression Means Zero Legitimate Gun Laws
by Jim Davidson
Attribute to L. Neil Smith’s The Libertarian Enterprise
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to
prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty ....
Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people,
they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon
—Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts,
Annals of Congress 750, 17 August 1789
Recently one of my Twitter mutual follows Zach Ford insisted in a series of Tweets that it was imperative that the social justice warriors, left liberal socialists, and 16-year-old enthusiasts for the coercive imposition of massive government be allowed to impose additional rules on who can have guns, and what sort of accessories guns may have. Zach has the non-aggression principle in his banner, and pretends that he is an anarcho-capitalist. However, what he is, it seems to me, is a person willing to compromise with evil because in his mind it is a little inconvenient to be engaged in conversations with people who oppose the individual right to keep and bear arms. He claims his views are reasonable and that compromise is sensible, or the socialist gun grabbers will be advocating even greater gun bans, which they would presumably implement by demanding that soldiers and police go door to door to seize all privately held weapons.
There can never be any gun law that is justified because the zero aggression principle means that every single individual is always free, always right to keep and bear arms in order to have tools for self-defence that are effective. Every single gun law is aggressive because it insists that the government either impose a tax (and all taxation is theft) or an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. There can be no exceptions. Anyone who thinks otherwise is mistaken, and should either be convinced by rational arguments, or stop pretending to be a voluntaryist, anarcho-capitalist, free market anarchist, or libertarian of any sort.
All compromise with evil is evil. Principles are only principles if you won't ever compromise them. If you are willing to compromise, then what you have is not a principle, but a talking point, and, frankly, I've heard enough bullshit from politicians already. I don't need people posing as freedom enthusiasts to emit more.
What about Zach's fear, that the socialists who want us all in death camps will demand gun confiscation? Why fear it? I believe there is a just God that rules the affairs of mankind, and if the slimy socialist scum want to grab all the guns, as they did in Germany during the Nazi regime, in Russia under Lenin and Stalin, in China under Mao, in Cambodia before the rise of Pol Pot, and in every other authoritarian regime anywhere on Earth, including the evil authoritarian governments of Japan and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and some places it stole, then let us see who shall be victorious. Let us finally find out what it means to be free people, to stand in the gap, to say, "Here am I," and to really mean it.
This nonsense that we must fear the socialists and weasel and cavil and submit to their whims is exactly what we should never have allowed anyone to begin doing in the first place. Lincoln was a tyrant, Teddy Roosevelt was a tyrant, Wilson was a tyrant, Franklin Roosevelt was a tyrant, and there has been nothing but tyranny since the scheme of the Federal Reserve to impose their "managed society" upon the world was begun, well before it was snuck through the Senate in 1913.
Who ever said that we are going to be able to vote ourselves freedom? Who ever imagined that free men and women would not need to fight for liberty? I believe that we cannot expect to vote into place any solution to the corruption endemic in Mordor on the Potomac. And I don't believe 198 million Americans, who either were not able to vote or chose not to vote in 2016, think so, either. I believe a fight for freedom has always been inevitable. The exact nature of that fight is best described by Bad Quaker Ben at his site http://badquaker.com/ and in his book found there.
Josie, the redhead libertarian is also willing to compromise on the right to keep and bear arms. Apparently, she was fed some lies about neuro " science" and believes that anyone under the ages 18 to 20, possibly even anyone as old as 20, cannot ever be allowed to have a gun, because they are not able to form mature thoughts. I've no idea how she has come to this dizzingly foolish position. But most of the people I know who lived West of the Mississippi were given a rifle on their 8th or 9th birthday and became proficient with it in a few weeks. Not one of those known to me personally ever committed any crime against any person. So, to me, Josie's position amounts to: children should be forbidden to have the means to protect themselves from murderers or rapists. I think that's insane. I dispute her claim to be a libertarian on this exact basis.
Freedom is for everyone. A person is a person, no matter how small.
Jim Davidson is the chief technology officer of TravellersCash.org, an author, an entrepreneur, and is working on several new communities with others in various parts of the world.
Was that worth reading?
Then why not:
This site may receive compensation if a product is purchased
through one of our partner or affiliate referral links. You
already know that, of course, but this is part of the FTC Disclosure
Policy found here. (Warning: this is a 2,359,896-byte 53-page PDF file!)