Pat Chats and Maynard Meanders
A few months back, Pat sent me a note that touched a nerve. After Tammy made a passing reference to friendly dolphins, I pointed out that dolphins were in fact capable of nasty behavior (see, for example, here or here).
Pat was observing the extent to which evil comes naturally to Man.
We have a beast within ourselves as well. Maybe I’m a mono-maniac when it comes to politics for turning your dirty dolphin exposé into a political tract. I’m not kidding about this. We have our darker nature just below the surface. The frenzied reaction to the AIG bonuses was sobering to me. Egregious as they were (I too was—am—outraged.) we have to be careful about being manipulated. The madness of crowds and all that. The mob is the mother of tyrants —Diogenes. We’ve talked about that before.
You think we’re not natively cruel? Pay attention to small children and what their instincts are. We can lose the façade of civilization in a snap.
It’s the example of children in the playground that nails it. The universal phenomenon of the schoolyard bully does not arise because of injustice or privation. This is not about race or culture or gender or economic status. We are born with a mean streak, and that’s all there is to it. If righteousness is to prevail, our darkness must be managed. The management can take one of two forms: Either we control ourselves, or we are controlled by external coercion.
I favor self-control, to the extent this is practical. Obviously the world cannot be limited only by self-control; that would be anarchy, and anarchy does not foster civilization. Authority is, to a certain extent, a necessary evil. But too much authority crushes the life out of us. Without liberty, there may be humans, but there is no humanity.
For us to establish self-control, we must understand exactly what it is we are trying to control. The enemy within our souls is no longer widely understood, let alone acknowledged. This is, in my estimation, the greatest error of the modern era: The assumption that Man is by nature good, and evil manifests only when something goes wrong. Nowadays we make excuses for evil. Whether it’s the Jew-killers in the Middle East or the thug who hits you with a brick and grabs your wallet, someone will explain why this behavior is understandable, if not forgivable or even admirable.
(However, you, paradoxically, have no excuses for your own bad behavior, and in fact bear much responsibility for the bad behavior of others. Go figure.)
Obviously our individual circumstances differ vastly, as do our individual opportunities. We each have strengths and weaknesses; we struggle with our personal temptations and demons. Bill Clinton is at risk in one way, and Richard Nixon in another. (I’m not suggesting that all sins are morally equivalent; I’m just noting that no one of us is above struggle.)
Tammy has spoken extensively of the youthful emotional damage that made her a tool of the Left. Likewise, I remember my own right of passage as an Angry Young Man. I had a terrible rage against…something; I could never quite pin down exactly what. It was a vulnerable period of my life, and I could easily have fallen under the influence of an evil counselor; an Adolf Hitler or a Charles Manson or a Reverend Wright, who would validate my anger and focus it upon an external enemy. And the only reason I did not in fact succumb to such a cult was the dumb luck of being awkward and isolated. I would have sold my soul, but no one wanted it. Thus I slipped through these dangerous waters locked in my own private hell, more of a danger to myself than to my fellow Man.
Let me change gears here to connect this to one of Obama’s more revealing gaffes. Do you recall the incident where he dismissed small-town Pennsylvanians as bitter people, clinging to their guns and their God? What was that all about?
I have a gun, and, if you define “cling” as my refusal to let you take it from me, then I do indeed cling to it. And I could justify my possession of that gun in legal terms or practical terms. But we’ve already heard those arguments go back and forth, and I’m not going to repeat them here. Let’s abandon the talking points and speak of greater truths. I tread dangerous ground here, but it’s important. I want to talk about my gun and my soul.
We say all Men are created equal, and we are endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights. Our laws respect those rights; at least they do in theory, although of course the implementation is imperfect. But there’s a dirty element of practical reality that must not be forgotten: It’s not God that makes men equal, or the law; it’s that gun in your hand. With a gun, the frailest woman is the (physically speaking) equal of the biggest, meanest thug. Without the gun, the big guy wins.
What I just said is of course an oversimplification. There is always another guy with a bigger gun, or a bigger gang. A gun-infested ghetto is not going to be a tranquil place. So it would be ridiculous for me to simply say that everything would be nifty if only we all had guns. But it’s equally ridiculous to say that everything would be nifty if nobody (other than the Authorities) had guns. I’m talking about the individual here; real people like you and me. If you have a gun, you have greater control of your destiny than if you don’t have a gun. With a gun, you have a shot (so to speak) at equality. With a gun, you may be killed, but you cannot be enslaved.
With my gun in my hand, I know the value of self-control. Because I am freed of the constraints of coercion. I am no longer accountable to Man. But I am accountable to God.
With my gun in my hand, I know I am good, because I act righteously even though I am freed of coercive authority. If I discard the gun, then I am perhaps good only because of my fear of being beaten into submission.
Obama understands me correctly, and in attacking me he speaks the truth—or at least the piece of it he wants you to hear. I cling to God and guns, because God is the authority I respect, and guns stand between me and the authority I don’t respect.
Do you begin to understand why Obama must vilify me? Because with my God and my gun, his ability to coerce and control me is limited. And Obama does not like this state of affairs. Obama is a jealous god.
Have I somehow turned this into another Obama rant? I suppose I have, but that’s not the point. This is not about Obama. There’s always another Obama coming down the pipes, grasping for power and condemning all who stand in his way. So forget Mr. Obama and think on the Judge of the Earth. Don’t cling to your guns; cling to your humanity. Cling to your freedom to live a life that is as free from coercion as can be had in this troubled world. Aspire to the twin goals of defending that freedom while at the same time remaining worthy of it.
God. Guns. Tyrants. You. Yes, I think I’ve covered the turf here. I’ll leave it to wiser heads to debate whether I’ve made any sense of it.
I listened to a talk last week about this very subject. Here is an excerpt.
“As a consequence, self-discipline has eroded and societies are left to try to maintain order and civility by compulsion. The lack of internal control by individuals breeds external control by governments. One columnist observed that “gentlemanly behavior [for example, once] protected women from coarse behavior. Today, we expect sexual harassment laws to restrain coarse behavior. . . .
“Policemen and laws can never replace customs, traditions and moral values as a means for regulating human behavior. At best, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society. Our increased reliance on laws to regulate behavior is a measure of how uncivilized we’ve become.”2
In most of the world, we have been experiencing an extended and devastating economic recession. It was brought on by multiple causes, but one of the major causes was widespread dishonest and unethical conduct, particularly in the U.S. housing and financial markets. Reactions have focused on enacting more and stronger regulation. Perhaps that may dissuade some from unprincipled conduct, but others will simply get more creative in their circumvention.3 There could never be enough rules so finely crafted as to anticipate and cover every situation, and even if there were, enforcement would be impossibly expensive and burdensome. This approach leads to diminished freedom for everyone.”
Maynard, although you called your post a “meandering”, the fact is what you just set forth is a condensed lay-man’s version of what Thomas Sowell talks about regarding “Unconstrained v. Constrained” (I believe this is the subject his new book), so far from being a meandering it is a spot on post about this country, what makes it different from other countries, and about remaining vigilant about Obama or any other such type that comes along in the future.
The Left is about CONTROL. They say they are not, but the list of things they want to CONTROL is getting longer and longer, while the list of what the Right wishes to control remains pretty much the same – but it’s still way shorter.
lord-ruler – what a wonderful talk you attended. And how very true it is. How very, very true . . . and sad and scary.
But it is these things that distinguish left from right and this are the things I try to concentrate on when arguing with undecideds, moderates and even liberals. I think it’s almost the best way to argue because it really hits home with people, more than the numbers and the statistics, etc.
It’s a way of reawakening the core being of Americans – don’t tread on me, live and let live, personal responsibility, self-starters. While some may see the movie WALL-E as a “leftist” message, I think it is also a conservative message – whether we let corporations or governments control us, we become slaves to them and we lose our freedoms, either voluntarily or involuntarily. We must take our freedoms back and become the self-sufficient, hard-working pioneers our forefathers and foremothers were. What built this country? Hard work, risk-taking, personal responsibility and thrift. Was there any government representative standing on Plymouth Rock when the Pilgrims arrived, handing out goodies? No, they got there themselves, they struggled and failed and died until they figured out how it would work. That’s the American way.
Not the lazy European way of waiting for someone else to clean up the mess while they take 6 week vacations and work 35 hours a week.
If we get back to the basics, we can be in economic recovery in no time at all and be at the front of the pack again.
Otherwise, we will become another European socialist lazy society that will fall to the first tyrant to come along.
Excellent post!
Maynard, wonderful post as always. I too heard the talk lord-ruler quoted, and it was that same passage that jumped out at me, and that I have therefore been pondering for the last couple of weeks, so this fits right along with it.
I remember when I was in 8th grade we were talking about political views, and one of the questions our teacher posed was, “Do you believe people are inherently good or inherently evil?” I think you did justice to the answer, but I would like to add something. While conservatives certainly do acknowledge and try to understand the darkness inherent in each of us, we also believe that it can and ought to be overcome, and that most people, given the choice, will do so. The view of those currently calling themselves liberals (such an oxymoron to call those who would enslave us “liberal”) on this matter is, as you pointed out, of two minds — sometimes pretending it doesn’t exist at all, other times acknowledging those impulses but insisting we’re powerless in the face of such overwhelming odds and therefore need Guidance. From them. Either way it sets people up to be slaves, to their own passions or to their government — or both. It’s really what this all boils down to — empowerment or enslavement.
Of course, this has been coming on for a long time. You could indeed say that people have been fighting this battle fromt he beginning. It is my sincerely held belief that God lost 1/3 of his children over this exact issue — heartbreaking as it must have been, even more abhorrent was their desire to enslave the rest of us. And if it’s that important to Him, it should probably be that important to us.
I must compliment you on your analysis. The war being fought between the leftist socialists spills into the society because the left is impatient. The real battle goes on right now for our children. Some, like Tammy are strong enough to overcome bad teaching, many incorporate bad teachings into their core. The indoctrination of children starts as early as the leftists can begin, thus the surge in effort to begin tax supported pre-school and day-care centers. We have to watch schools and teachers like hawks, but the shadowy halls of state governments is where the action is. Unelected arbiters of state indoctrination of your children lurk here. They collect advanced degrees as though they were stamps, specifically to appear to be above reproach, and to exclude anyone (with common sense) else from encroaching on their franchise. Think about how strong your feelings are about your early experiences, the people in your life, and how they shaped you and your thoughts. Consider how you probably think much the same way today, I’m referring to your core, your gut. We are all shaped by experiences and other factors as we mature, but our core is formed early, and should not be trusted to some “authority” to be shaped for us, so we can go about our busy lives. The game plan of socialists is summed up here in a very short article by Peter Nyquist. http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/pastanalysis/2009/1002.html
UNalienable, not INalienable. All most excellent and thought-provoking comments and may I make one point: The Declaration of Indepedence states we are all created equally with unalienable rights; not inalienable rights. Check it out: http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/
This is one of the problems I have with Glen Beck. Like Tammy, I find him interesting. Yet, in the whole discussion of taking care “not to change the language” he changes the language from “unalienable rights” to “inalienable rights”. The two are similar but are not the same which is why it is so dangerous. This is how they do it – change ever so slightly and then one day it’s like “nah, these are just wish list things” not “rights” given by anyone – ESPECIALLY GOD!
‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.
As I tried to explain to Glenn in an email he likely never read, languge matters – especially this! If I have to trust my rights are endowed to me by God instead of by man…I’m taking God; for if man can give, he can surely take – and does he ever.
Inalienable rights are those rights protected by MAN. Unalienable rights are those endowed by the Creator (whomever you all think that “Being” is – I think it’s God) and CANNOT BE REVOKED BY MAN!
Of course, we’ve already seen that man’s “rights” provided to other “men” can be taken away by “man” – whether they’re supposed to be protected by the Constitution or not. Can we not at least attempt to keep our founding documents original? I’ll take unalienable any day, thanks.
Thanks, I’ve corrected the post. You’re right, it’s an important distinction. We mustn’t be ineducated.
Wow – what is the distinction? How many of us believe the DOI says "inalienable". Check the
National Archives . I did a search of GlennBeck.com “unalienable” search and found only a few returns from the StuBlog for “unalienable” that are dead ends. Lots of returns for “inalienable” with Glennbeck.com “inalienable”search.
Dictionary.com implies they are synonyms:
INALIENABLE: not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated: inalienable rights.
UNALIENABLE: Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable.
Here is a site that has a discussion of a legal DISTINCTION. Here is another discussion about inalienable vs unalienable:
Inalienable vs. unalienable
“Inalienable” : etymologically, comes from the French word inaliénable, and is more usually used in legal documents than “unalienable.”
The idea of inalienable rights, in almost the exact phrasing used in the Declaration of Independence, came from the English political philosopher John Locke. The Declaration of Independence was to a large degree inspired by his work “The Second Treatise of Government”. In this treatise, Locke developed the important idea of government by consent. Locke wrote that human beings had certain inalienable rights.
Thomas Jefferson originally wrote “inalienable”; When subsequent printed and hand-copied reproductions were made, John Adams, fellow Declaration Committee member (and later second President of the United States), arbitrarily had the word changed to “unalienable” which he believed more correct. The original signed version of the final draft (the master document) of the Declaration of Independence and the inscription on the Jefferson Memorial both read “inalienable”. However, the copy in the National Archives reads “unalienable”.
*******************
Merits more research to authenticate the above. Trust but verify. Great topic.
http://unalienable.com/
unalienable – absolute – natural – in existence before any “document” exisisted – bestowed on this country’s inhabitants by God. Whereas inalienable rights are those “rights” bestowed onto mankind by mankind.
Most Conservatives believe this country was Devinly inspired. That being the case, or understood as such, would lead one to believe that is the reason under which Adams changed the word. The Founders, I believe, knew and had a keen understanding of how man could change and twist words to their liking. Did Adams “sneak” in this word change? Not that it matters in this discussion, but I personally don’t believe it was an arbitrary change. But given that the word changed at some point, was it done so before the execution of the signatories or after?
I believe to prevent the generations of malcontents and power hogs which would follow the adoption of the founding documents, it was purposefuly corrected to state “unalienable”.
Here are a couple of examples of interchangable words: warm/tepid; chilly/cold; like/fond; lie/misspoke; late/untimely; and the all too familiar “it all depends what your definition of ‘is’, is”. All similar – yet, we can see the subtle differences when they affect our lives.
So what the French used inalienable as their term for rights? So what ANY country, or kingdon, or cult or nation prior to America used that term.
The whole idea was that the Founders understood what had been tried over the centuries and had FAILED. They were trying NOT to copy what others had done and failed at, but to put systems in place, to keep this beacon on a hill unfallible. Having the Declaration of Independence, of all documents, place such an emphasis on these words: inalienable (given and protected by man) v unalienable (given by God and mankind is powerless to take them away) tells me even that one word was Devinly inspired. That’s not saying man doesn’t TRY to take away those rights – but those specific rights are ABSOLUTE nonetheless. How wonderful it would be to have the ability and go back in time and ask Adams that very question!
(uh…and for you lefties out there….healthcare is NOT an ennumerated right, under any interpretation of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence or the map of the great state of Maryland for that matter).
” dominance and submission :it’s what makes the world go ‘ round…. It exists in all relationships to a degree.” dr. tony hill from tv show ‘ wire in the blood’.
“when i say evil has to do with killing, i do not mean to restrict myself to corporeal murder. evil is also that which kills spirit. there are various essential attributes of life-particularly human life- such as sentience, mobility, awareness, growth, autonomy, will. it is possible to kill or attempt to kill one of these attributes without actually destroying the body thus we may ‘ break’ a horse or even a child without harming a hair on its head. erich fromme was acutely sensitive to this fact when he broadened the definition of necrophilia to include the desire of certain people to control others- to make them controllable, to foster their dependency, to discourage their capacity to think for themselves, to diminish thier unpredictability and originality, to keep them in line. distinguishing it from the ‘biophilic’ person, one who appreciates and fosters the variety of life forms and the uniqueness of the individual, he demonstrated a ‘ necrophilic character type’ whose aim it is to avoid the inconvenience of life by transforming others into obedient automatons, robbing them of their humanity.” –
m. scott peck, ‘people of the lie: the hope for healing human evil’ , paraphrasing erich fromm, ‘the heart of man : its genius for good and evil’ [ NB: fromm was a german jew who fled from the country with the nazis take over. ]
it’s all about power. everything. humans seem to be born with the desire in various degrees to control everything around them- other humans, animals, the environment- they have an unfading virulent desire to themselves be god. and then there are some who unable to emotionally meet the demands of possessing a free will, uncomfortable thinking for themselves and like nothing better than the easy route: make some other human god and follow them even to their own deaths- no need to think, no need to question, no need to want, no need to define one’s desires and fears. all taken care of. for every god there has to be devotees- for every obama, a bunch of zombies. for every manson, a bunch of manson girls. it offers safety, alleged protection and belonging. we all want to belong- we all want to be loved. unfortunately in politics as in personal life when most people say ‘ love’ ( ie take care of, save,) they really mean ‘control’.
i have always refused to submit and i do not think for me it was because of access to a gun or belief in a patriarchal god defined in books by men for men to promote enslaving humans to the will of other humans. one has to be free to choose which means free to think. free will is the most important thing we have and traditionally western governments have suborned the right to human free will to what has for eons been a god-like figure head( literally god-king, emperor, pope, president) who is often treated like ‘ ‘the Saviour’ of mankind. (in light if this obama worship makes absolute sense.) the Deist founders of this country sought to unhook this concept from its roots- the roots of oppression in the guise of religion and law intertwined. marxism and socialism are nothing more than religious outlooks that aim to reconnect governance with all powerful rulers who easily control the free will out of people.”… transforming others into obedient automatons, robbing them of their humanity.”
if we are born with the free will to resist, we’re also born with the free will to do everything evil under the sun. utopia on earth is impossible if we allow for free will which does not mean there does not need to be mechanisms in place to keep individuals free from the depredations of their fellow men. the leftist utopia likes to gloss over real human evil as some illness that can be cured and rehabilitated- because they are not humble enough to realize they are not god- just flawed, power hungry humans who call their thirst for power over others lives ‘ humanitarianism’. manipulation is the heart of human evil and its what they themselves are up to. government should stick to keeping people safe from the manipulations of others that are destructive and injurious. that’s about it. government has no business setting itself up as a religious charity- forcing people to give up the rights to their corporeal body in order to spread the wealth to those who opt not to take care of themselves, not to fight, who choose not to access that wonderful gift of free will to strive to make of your life what you will.
i choose the unpredictability of life lived from the promptings from within myself. do what thy will, hurting no others is the whole of the law. that’s what freedom is and no other country on earth has been founded in such principles that allow this to be so than the united states as envisioned by our constitution.
I really enjoyed this read.
I was just having a conversation with another friend of mine regarding the “Christian Just War Theory”. I watched the debate between Hannity and Moore a while back and Moore brought up “love thy neighbor” as his defense against all military action. For me, I think the most frustrating thing is this notion that liberals have that man is good, as you said, and its only external circumstances that make men bad. When you are mainly talking about tyrants capable of getting their hands on mass murdering weapons they’re not “playing with a full deck” anyway by virtue of the fact their already tyrants.
Someone mentioned in a previous comment about overcoming Leftist ideology. Don and I had a brief facebook chat one night about both sides having a forum on T.V. in which they are forced to debate the issues. We have “debates” at election time–often though they are poorly constructed and don’t really serve the purpose the way they should. Americans can be made to see the faulty thinking of “leftism” if they have something that’s in front of their faces. I think there needs to be a venue in which that happens all the time–and not just when there’s an election.
Just for the heck of it, fire up your favorite search engine and put in “Gun is civilization” and look it over. The original essay was first put up by blogger “Munchkin Wrangler” and has since made it’s way into all sorts of authorship controversy since. But that’s nada.
Read that post, and see how it might dovetail into the sentiment expressed here, and realize that more than a few citizens see firearms ownership in this fashion.