Comments on: First they disarm you http://www.barrelstrength.com/2009/05/26/first-they-disarm-you/ Over Proof Opinion, Smoothly Aged Insight Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:57:10 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Steve http://www.barrelstrength.com/2009/05/26/first-they-disarm-you/comment-page-1/#comment-1959 Steve Tue, 26 May 2009 23:12:23 +0000 http://www.barrelstrength.com/?p=1633#comment-1959 Theodore Dalrymple's good friend Alexander Boot, in his book <i>How the West Was Lost</i>, said, "Governments are no longer there to protect society and the individuals within it. They are out to protect the sacred cow of statism..." According to Boot, the raison d'etre of modern liberal man (whom he calls Modman) is to destroy the "old certitudes" of traditional Western man (whom he calls Westman). With burglary, the property owner is now seen as privileged, whereas the burglar is a victim of society who "is in the same business as the state: redistributing wealth". If the property owner resists the burglary, "the burglar may have to defend himself". If the burglar initiates violence, the property owner can only use commensurate force. "If the owner panics and kills the burglar with a meat cleaver when none is found in the burglar's possession, then the owner shall be convicted of manslaughter... "In our time, the state has to have a monopoly on violence, so armed citizenry is off limits. A Westman holdout who thinks otherwise presents a greater threat to Modman than even a murderer. The former assails the glossocratic premise of Modman's government; the latter merely attacks individuals... An illiterate criminal in no way jeopardizes Modman's power. The lout's victim, especially if he is a Westman holdout, may. Therefore, every law devised by Modman will favour the criminal over the victim." I highly recommend the book. I don't agree with everything in it (and actually, neither does Dalrymple), but it opened my eyes to a whole new view of Western history, most of which I probably agree with. Theodore Dalrymple’s good friend Alexander Boot, in his book How the West Was Lost, said, “Governments are no longer there to protect society and the individuals within it. They are out to protect the sacred cow of statism…”

According to Boot, the raison d’etre of modern liberal man (whom he calls Modman) is to destroy the “old certitudes” of traditional Western man (whom he calls Westman). With burglary, the property owner is now seen as privileged, whereas the burglar is a victim of society who “is in the same business as the state: redistributing wealth”. If the property owner resists the burglary, “the burglar may have to defend himself”. If the burglar initiates violence, the property owner can only use commensurate force. “If the owner panics and kills the burglar with a meat cleaver when none is found in the burglar’s possession, then the owner shall be convicted of manslaughter…

“In our time, the state has to have a monopoly on violence, so armed citizenry is off limits. A Westman holdout who thinks otherwise presents a greater threat to Modman than even a murderer. The former assails the glossocratic premise of Modman’s government; the latter merely attacks individuals…

An illiterate criminal in no way jeopardizes Modman’s power. The lout’s victim, especially if he is a Westman holdout, may. Therefore, every law devised by Modman will favour the criminal over the victim.”

I highly recommend the book. I don’t agree with everything in it (and actually, neither does Dalrymple), but it opened my eyes to a whole new view of Western history, most of which I probably agree with.

]]> By: Gronsky http://www.barrelstrength.com/2009/05/26/first-they-disarm-you/comment-page-1/#comment-1958 Gronsky Tue, 26 May 2009 20:40:36 +0000 http://www.barrelstrength.com/?p=1633#comment-1958 Really excellent piece. As a former prosecutor, I know that the police have been reduced to paper pushers in most cases. They process reports and forms and go to court to testify but the Charter means new rules arise all the time restricting what they can do, making their work unpredictable and frustrating. So they stop trying so hard, and I don't much blame them. I think our Court of Appeal has finally smelled the coffee in the case of handguns. But, it took about 200 or 300 murders of young men over the past five years plus the unfortunate Jane Creba case before the Court was really prepared to acknowledge we have a problem that required them to override the rights of young men to carry illegal handguns around and to have the evidence excluded if the police were not sufficiently careful with them. Really excellent piece. As a former prosecutor, I know that the police have been reduced to paper pushers in most cases. They process reports and forms and go to court to testify but the Charter means new rules arise all the time restricting what they can do, making their work unpredictable and frustrating. So they stop trying so hard, and I don’t much blame them. I think our Court of Appeal has finally smelled the coffee in the case of handguns. But, it took about 200 or 300 murders of young men over the past five years plus the unfortunate Jane Creba case before the Court was really prepared to acknowledge we have a problem that required them to override the rights of young men to carry illegal handguns around and to have the evidence excluded if the police were not sufficiently careful with them.

]]> By: Highland Hermit http://www.barrelstrength.com/2009/05/26/first-they-disarm-you/comment-page-1/#comment-1957 Highland Hermit Tue, 26 May 2009 20:17:57 +0000 http://www.barrelstrength.com/?p=1633#comment-1957 The only valid reason for laying charges in this case would have been the harm , or potential harm, that was done to an innocent third party. There no mention of this possibility in the story or the charges, so it is highly unlikely any such harm occurred. There is always the possibility than someone who lacks judgment may harm someone while attempting to defend his property. The most likely victim being the thief. If so, there are remedies. Where no harm is done to anyone the police are simply penalizing people for protecting their own property a task most police seem unable or unwilling to perform. The only valid reason for laying charges in this case would have been the harm , or potential harm, that was done to an innocent third party. There no mention of this possibility in the story or the charges, so it is highly unlikely any such harm occurred. There is always the possibility than someone who lacks judgment may harm someone while attempting to defend his property. The most likely victim being the thief. If so, there are remedies. Where no harm is done to anyone the police are simply penalizing people for protecting their own property a task most police seem unable or unwilling to perform.

]]>