The Sad Road to Socialism

What happens When Private Property is No Longer a Right

“But if the government undertakes to control and to raise wages, and cannot do it; if the government undertakes to care for all who may be in want, and cannot do it; if the government undertakes to support all unemployed workers, and cannot do it; if the government undertakes to lend interest-free money to all borrowers, and cannot do it; if .... ‘The state considers that its purpose is to enlighten, to develop, to enlarge, to strengthen, to spiritualize, and to sanctify the soul of the people’ -- and if the government cannot do all of these things, what then? Is it not certain that after every government failure -- which, alas! is more than probable -- there will be an equally inevitable revolution?”

-Frederic Bastiat, “The Law,” June, 1850

It’s been more than 150 years since Frederic Bastiat wrote his treatise, The Law, a small work, challenging the ravages of failing socialism thrust upon France as a result of the French revolution.

In that unique pamphlet, Bastiat points out that when the law of any country supports the moral belief systems of a people, defends the rights of said people and their property, the law is perceived as being moral; a defense against evil and those who flaunt it as being immoral. Payment of taxes and civic obligations are perceived as a virtue and those who flout this as criminals.

However, when the law becomes a source of plunder or pits itself in opposition to the morals of the people, the people perceive the law to be immoral and widely despise it. Indeed, in those times, flouting the law is extolled as virtue.

Another book by contemporary author Hernando Desoto, The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else, points out much the same thing, that the security of ownership of private property guaranteed by law for the lower and middle classes has been the essential ingredient resulting in the prosperity enjoyed by many western countries. Without this security, where the state becomes an impediment to commerce or property ownership, the people are forced to operate their economies outside of law, which is once again perceived as evil, rather than a force for good.

In essence, when a government goes from being a protector of private property to a plunderer of it, it places itself on a course of chaos, economic ruin and its own ultimate self-destruction.

The Three Steps of Socialism

Socialism is the mechanism which transforms government from its noble role as a protector into a predator and, since the citizens of our fine country seem determined to plow through socialism to its bitter end, we should examine the territory through which these three sad steps lead. The core result of socialism is the destruction of private property and wealth.

The events described in this piece are a composite of the ravages of socialism experienced in other countries. While each country does experience all the events portrayed, all socialist countries follow the same miserable path. The U.S. doesn’t have to go down this path, but it seems determines to do so.

We’re Off to See the Wizard

One of the great dangers of any government by the people is that sooner or later their politicians discover they can vote largess from the public trust. Their first experiment at this bold new adventure invariably revolves around social programs enacted in the name of morality and the public good or even solving some current crisis. Who could oppose that? “After all,” it will be argued, “don’t you care about people, or the welfare of the country, or the environment?”

The lure of this argument has been absolutely irresistible from the Roman Empire to the French and Bolshevik revolutions to Socialist Parties (D) and (R) in the USA today.

Step One - The Moral Argument: A Promise of Something for Nothing

The moral argument that we can finally solve poverty, pain, sickness, and hunger with “free” money seems just to good to be true. It usually is but it sells to the public. To fund these allegedly moral programs, the assets of the gentle citizens must be quietly taxed in the name of the public good.

Only a few wise and isolated voices warn that this baby dragon they have just hatched will grow up to be a fire-breathing monster. But not to fear, the wise voices are generally shouted down by the gentle politicians, who fiercely demonize protestors as selfish “whabbledygots” blocking the road to the perfect society. After all, how could something so noble do anything bad to the country?

At first the rich are the only ones asked to pay more of their “fair share.” In the U.S. income tax originally only affected upper-bracket individuals. In this early stage, few complain and everyone seems happy, except for those nagging voices still warning of dire consequences ahead; the ones the gentle legislators wish would just shut up. Other than that they have little to fear because the gentle legislators appear to be heroes placing our feet firmly on the road to utopia. Soon they promise all the have-nots will have and those who do have, will have just a little less. After all, as we said, it’s just their “fair share.”

Ah but time rumbles onward, and the number of people dependent upon these programs swells along with the number of “free” government programs. Free things do sell, and that’s what politicians want to do: sell their programs.

As the programs swell, they become unwieldy, requiring large bloated bureaucracies to administer them to ward off the inevitable fraud and corruption, consuming an ever greater part of the tax booty and servicing less to the originally intended recipients. In order to control the chaos of a large group of people cueing up to get something for nothing, large volumes of laws and regulations have to be written to control who gets what and where and when and who the givers and who the takers are. Now, the bureaucrats who administer these programs are also dependent on them for their livelihoods. This entrenches the program and assures its progression to Stage Two.

The Magic Dragon Isn’t Cute Anymore

Somewhere along the line, the gentle legislators discover that their baby dragon has grown and it’s snarling at them a lot. It wants much food. They’re not controlling it; it’s controlling them. However, in order to retain their prestigious position, ever-increasing sources must be found to feed their growing rapacious raptor.

The food source (tax burden) shifts rapidly downward into the middle class, as the gentle politicians coo that only the rich are being soaked. Concomitant with the increase of taxation, the miracle of hidden taxation through monetary inflation is discovered as central banks print more and more money to allow the good times to continue over and above what direct taxation will allow.

This process of monetary inflation results in debasement of the currency, causing the citizens to work harder and harder and run faster and faster to keep up with the loss of their currency’s value and the concomitant rise of prices. It’s slow at first but accelerates along an insidious exponential path. Ultimately it destroys everything the middle class works for.

Additional reptilian food sources called “revenue streams” are created. More fees, fines, “mitigation payments” and permits are required to do almost anything, driving the cost of doing everything upwards. Coupled with this is a bewildering array of regulation and laws making the business of life more and more difficult to accomplish. Big businesses can absorb this but the middle class ultimately buckles under the strain. The dragon is never satisfied.

Stage 2: Silent War Between Government and Its Citizens

At some point, the unwashed masses suspect their politicians aren’t really gentle any more much less benevolent. This is where a silent war between government and people erupts. It’s a blurry transition through never-never land when the politicians still claim to be gentle but the people sense that they have gone from being protectors of the public good and private property to a plunderers of it; from morality to immorality.

The “Bastiat” transition doesn’t take place all at once but, one by one, members of the working class realize they’re toiling like mad and getting no where. What they do make is confiscated in taxes or destroyed in inflation. They have little left over and their life’s savings are being destroyed while the politicians tell them all is just fine, creating cognitive dissonance between the hardship workers experience and the good times the politicians promise.

But those friends of the dragon on the dole still insist the dragon’s intentions are moral, even if its methods are not. As tax rates push ever higher into confiscatory ranges, self-preservation kicks in and the people take defensive action against what they no longer perceive as moral duty but legally-sanctioned plunder. They do this at the same time they pretend the gentle politicians are correct even though they know better.

The rich catch on and move their assets offshore and sometimes themselves out of the reach of the dragon; they expatriate. They have the means to structure their finances in such as way as preserve wealth. Besides, the politicians are frequently among this class so they aren’t about to let the dragon loose on themselves.

Unfortunately, the middle class doesn’t have this option, so it fights the dragon by engaging in evasive maneuvers. Citizens cheat on taxes, and seek to conceal taxable assets. Whenever possible transactions are shielded from the ever-prying eyes of the hungry dragon.

As the ravages of taxation and inflation eat out the middle class’s substance, a vibrant underground economy springs up, utilizing barter, cash, foreign currencies, precious metals or other means to conceal taxable activity. Regulatory laws are flouted as people try to “see what they can get away with.” Often times this underground economy has an organized crime component vis a vis the former Soviet Union.

The second half of Stage Two of the war kicks into gear as the dragon responds to the rising opposition and imposes a growing panoply of laws and regulations with increasing fines, penalties and prison sentences. To block the rampant flouting of law, the dragon wants to monitor everything the citizens do in order to assure that plunder shall be paid, all in the name of the rule of law, public order and morality. Civil rights break down, all in the name of morality and public security.

Every once in a while the beleaguered middle class pleads with the gentle politicians to fix the problem, unaware that it was the gentle politicians, who created it all in the first place. But politicians are more than happy to be seen as dragon slayers, and create a series of scapegoats for the problem, transferring blame for the mess and enacting a new series of programs to supposedly fix the problem. In reality, they just delay the pain, put the dragon on steroids and making the problem far worse.

The war is not without casualties. As it becomes ever more difficult for small businesses to function in the poisoned atmosphere of taxes, fees, fines, regulations and prosecutions, more of the middle class throws up its hands and goes elsewhere or becomes part of the the dependent poor. Small business goes out of business or operates illegally. As inflation devours life savings, people are wiped out. Retirees have a difficult time getting on as their lifetime achievements are destroyed. Most of the middle class slides inexorably down the slope into poverty.

There is a moral consequence as scandals erupt in the politico and monied classes. Disrespect of law is common. In the free-for-all, everyone is in it for himself and no one can afford to obey the law. Jails swell with those unfortunate enough to get caught. As more complex laws are steadily passed, finally all citizens become law-breakers.

This enables the dragon to seek pretexts for seizing the assets of citizens. Businesses are nationalized. Wage and price controls are instituted. Property ownership is forcibly transferred from those who oppose the dragon to those who support it. Retirement plans are brought under the “protection” of government and their owners left with government-issued IOUs. Assets are seized on the mere allegation of criminal activity. Indeed, law enforcement agencies encourage their members to plunder. They even make arrangements with organized crime at times. The list of plunder-and-defend possibilities is astounding.

In an effort to stem the hemorrhage, the middle class starts throwing out the rascal politicians, only to elect another group of rascals. This has little effect, since the dragon is now a self-existing monster that doesn’t require gentle politicians. By this stage it’s clear: Small and middle class businesses, ranchers and farmers all know who the enemy is: the dragon. There is no illusion that the politicians are gentle or acting in their best interests.

As the security of property ownership declines, investments flee and the economic environment becomes unstable, no one wants to invest where earnings will be heavily taxed, or even the possibility of direct confiscation on the allegation of having violated a plethora of unknowable, unobservable laws. Doing business is just too dangerous.

As doing business becomes dangerous, investments die, jobs go out of existence, increasing the pain of the working lower and middle classes. Small business is always the primary creator of employment and it is the most abused. In the end, the rich are never soaked, the middle class is destroyed and the poor discover that there is no free lunch.

Stage Three: Dies Irae: A Day of Wrath and Mourning

Ultimately the dragon cannot keep its promises. This last stage is where events turn nasty and chaotic. It is a dangerous time. It is a time no country should ever wish to reach.

Politicians are perceived as ravenous wolves. Blame and finger-pointing frenzies among politicians erupt to deflect responsibility for the chaos they have caused as they attempt to hold onto their privileged status.

Faith in government dissolves along with faith in the currency. Widespread flouting of law is common and tax payments quit. If it gets bad enough, crime flourishes, both organized and random. The domestic economy collapses into a depression and the currency just collapses.

By this time there are several violently outraged groups of people: the first group consists of those who have been dependent on the dragon for their free programs, and once the dragon reneges on its promises to provide these, they are outraged at the violation of their imagined rights to a free lunch. This group can include pensioners who paid the dragon money but discover the dragon spent it all before they retired.

The second group is the middle class, who have been beaten to death to feed the dragon and his cronies. They have lost all their livelihood and property. This is the point where many revolutions occur. Sometimes the revolutions are non-bloody and occur only at the voting booths; sometimes they are bloody and violent. It is a dangerous time because the chaos caused by the breakdown of economic and political order coupled with the collapse of morality often requires brute force to restore order, and brute force is the fertile ground for dictators and the destruction of rights.

One of the great ironies of history is that those who started the mess and benefitted greatly from it are rarely ever called to pay for the crimes and carnage they caused.

Finally the dragon dies.

Conclusion

No country trapped in socialism goes through all the events described above, which is a composite of past histories. It can turn itself at any time providing it is prepared to discipline itself the undergo the pain required to get off the public dole, much like coming off an addiction. Few societies ever want to face that, so they condemn themselves to all three stages. And the longer they wait to enact the necessary changes, the worse the pain becomes.

From currency, to energy to property rights, issues today are clouded with so much static and partisan bickering that the average person has little real comprehension of what is happening. Frequently Democrats and Republicans blame each other when often they’re both responsible and fiddle while Rome burns.

America is truly at an economic and moral crossroad, having already started into Stage Two of the sad road to socialism. Whether or not we plow through all three stages remains to be seen. It takes great moral courage to prevent this but politicians tend to be neither moral or courageous.

Thus it is up to what actions are moral, legal and necessary to see us, our families and friends safely through the tempest. But as a ray of hope, it is here where Americans in times past have always shown themselves most noble.

# # #

John Loeffler is 40-year broadcast news veteran and host of the nationally syndicated talk show on the IRN/USA Radio Network, Steel on Steel (www.steelonsteel.com) and co-host of The Financial Sense Newshour (www.financialsense.com).

So how does this reconcile with the strong european and canadian economies where government is 40% of GDP vs the US 30%.
Communist economies have collapsed but socialist ones seem to keep chugging along.
As a hedge against the potential meltdown of the dollar I'm putting half my retirement kitty into non US investments including real estate in my home city of Toronto.
(A friend I went to school with is an expert capitalist in the Toronto condo market and an opportunity too good to pass up has come along)
As long as the US economy keeps expanding as it has for the last 100 years capital will not flee but at some point the Chinese will decide to invest their money at home instead of abroad.
Ironic, the communists/socialists having such a position
over the capitalist US.

There's more to a country than economics. Freedom isn't always comfortable, but socialism takes away all trace of individuality and freedom, and leaves everyone a subject to the state. That's never a good thing. Totalitarianism results, and we can easily find examples in history of the sudden absence of benevolence in totalitarian regimes.

The growth of China is capitalist growth. There is no disputing that. The fact that China is a dictatorship is beside the point, although it is another, interesting discussion entirely.

Europe isn't doing as well (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005242) as you think.

http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/62004chart.gif

The standard of living is better (overall) in the U.S. then in those socialist countries. And in many (if not most) of those countries there are indicators that the tide is turning against socialism.

Finally the dragon dies.


There's more to a country than economics. Freedom isn't always comfortable, but socialism takes away all trace of individuality and freedom, and leaves everyone a subject to the state. That's never a good thing. Totalitarianism results, and we can easily find examples in history of the sudden absence of benevolence in totalitarian regimes.



I think your analysis is a little harsh and too fatalistic especially this part:

" socialism takes away all trace of individuality and freedom, and leaves everyone a subject to the state."

I lived in Canada for the first 35 years of my life; a country you would consider socialist.
There's plenty of individuality and freedom and people succeed on their merits.

Yes taxes are higher as is social spending but this hasn't led to some kind of totalitarian government police state
you seem to jump to in your conclusion.

With universal health care everyone can go see a doctor
and no one gets put in the poor house by medical bills,
or fight with HMO's and insurance companies,
however people have died waiting for some procedures.

The standard of living is more than just how much money you make and have.
People don't have the fear of the government that many Americans have of their's even though there's gun control.

Yes the US is a better place for smart talented motivated self starting enterprenureal and entertainment people(many famous entertainers are Canadian and there's a million working in California in tv and movies) but socialism isn't the blood sucking Dracula that turns you into a zombie that you make it out to be.

I think your analysis is a little harsh and too fatalistic especially this part:

" socialism takes away all trace of individuality and freedom, and leaves everyone a subject to the state."

I lived in Canada for the first 35 years of my life; a country you would consider socialist.
There's plenty of individuality and freedom and people succeed on their merits.

Yes taxes are higher as is social spending but this hasn't led to some kind of totalitarian government police state
you seem to jump to in your conclusion.

With universal health care everyone can go see a doctor
and no one gets put in the poor house by medical bills,
or fight with HMO's and insurance companies,
however people have died waiting for some procedures.

The standard of living is more than just how much money you make and have.
People don't have the fear of the government that many Americans have of their's even though there's gun control.

Yes the US is a better place for smart talented motivated self starting enterprenureal and entertainment people(many famous entertainers are Canadian and there's a million working in California in tv and movies) but socialism isn't the blood sucking Dracula that turns you into a zombie that you make it out to be.

Well, you are right; socialism, in and of itself doesn't "takes away all trace of individuality and freedom, and leaves everyone a subject to the state". But that is it's ultimate purpose.

According to Karl Marx original writings (where the idea and overall philosophy of socialism comes from), socialism is the next evolution of government after democracy is overthrown through revolution. Socialism eventually evolves into communism. The overall purpose of socialism is to slowing do away with private property and individuality; effectively doing away with freedom.

While Marx was wrong and misguided in his thinking on a number of levels, the one relevant to this discussion is in the change from democracy to socialism through revolution. While some radicals have (through political and/or military opportunism) forced a change to socialism through revolution, the kind of revolution that Marx was talking about (a ground-swell in the general populace that leads to revolution) has gone in the opposite direction; from socialism to democracy.

So socialists in today's modern world have turned to a hybrid of democracy and socialism; a kind of "quazi-socialism" (as is seen strongly in European countries), with the ultimate hope of moving, or evolving to a socialist state and eventually achieving the communist ideal. This political philosophy also goes by a few other names today, including "progressivism" and "egalitarian liberalism", or "egalitarianism".

Still,you are starting to see European countries turn away from socialism and back toward the democratic end of the spectrum. This lends credibility to the view that socialism as a political philosophy is inherently flawed and will always eventually collapse in on itself.

When standard of living is cited here, it is in the context you talk about; not just in monetary income terms. Also in terms of liberty and freedoms (economics being a big one, if not the biggest). That standard of living is far greater in the U.S. then anywhere in the world.

I also don't agree with your view that most American's "fear" our government. Where are you getting that, and does this level of "fear" you talk about have any reasonable justification, or is it more due to fabrication and spin by the MSM?

Americans have traditionally been most wary of our government when it tries to go more toward the socialist end of the spectrum. Today, most American's are not in fear of government, or more fearful then European residents are of their government.

This is because American residents have much more freedoms then their European counterparts. When is the last time you have seen protests due to the price of oil due to government taxes as you have seen in Europe? Or a black market build up in medical care due to the lack of medical care as in Europe?

"I also don't agree with your view that most American's "fear" our government. Where are you getting that, and does this level of "fear" you talk about have any reasonable justification, or is it more due to fabrication and spin by the MSM"



I think a lot of gun owners have guns because they fear and distrust the US government.
I don't think it a "reasonable justification" but they seem to.



http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-08/osu-gom081401.php
Gun owners more likely to distrust the federal government




COLUMBUS, Ohio - A new nationwide study confirms the popular notion that people who own guns are more likely than others to have little confidence in the federal government.
Using a nationwide sample, sociologists Robert Jiobu and Timothy Curry at Ohio State University found that gun owners had less faith than non-owners in the government, even after they controlled for a variety of other factors that may affect gun ownership.
"Far from being a characteristic of a small minority, distrust of the federal government is widespread, a finding that has been reported before," said Jiobu, an associate professor at Ohio State. "We found that these people who don't have faith in the government are more likely to own guns."
The study was published in a recent issue of the journal Social Science Quarterly. The researchers analyzed data collected between 1988 and 1996 from the General Social Survey (GSS), which included interviews with a total of 6,576 people.
Participants were asked several questions about how much confidence they had in the people who ran the three branches of the federal government.
Nearly half of the Americans surveyed - 43.9 percent -- had hardly any confidence in one or more branches of the federal government, a finding that supports other studies.
Results showed that of those respondents who said they had a great deal of faith in all three branches of government, only 23 percent owned a firearm - compared to a 37 percent gun ownership rate among those who had hardly any faith in any branch of the federal government.
The results held firm even after the researchers controlled for a variety of other factors that may affect whether people own guns. These included things such as political ideology, gender, age, education, general fear of crime, and whether the respondents had been crime victims in the previous year. They also controlled for whether participants or someone in their household hunted, what region of the country they lived in and whether they lived in a city, in the suburbs or in a rural area.
The results also held true no matter who was President at the time of the survey: Ronald Reagan, George Bush or Bill Clinton.
Curry, also an associate professor at Ohio State, said people who don't trust the government may be more likely to own guns because firearms offer a "symbolic empowerment" to owners.
"For some people, guns represent freedom and the ability to protect themselves," Curry said. "Guns are seen as a little bit of protection in an otherwise chaotic world."
People who don't trust the government may own guns because they are afraid that the federal government may try to take their rights away, Curry said. Or, they may not fear the government itself, but may believe the government will not be able to protect them from outside forces.
The results suggest efforts to control the sale of handguns may have some unintended consequences. "To mandate decreased gun ownership through gun control legislation may only encourage those people who have little faith in the government to stockpile weapons," Jiobu said.
Understanding that some people own guns because of their lack of trust in government can shed some light on the gun control debate, according to Curry. "We have to understand that for many people, the gun is an icon for evil and violence, while for others that same gun is an icon for democracy and personal empowerment," he said. "Until that is understood, neither side of the debate will be able to understand how the other side can be so blind to the 'truth.'"

I have to agree with 04 on this point. We already have the beginnings of a police state here. The ATF is more powerful and fully funded than ever, and so are all the many different police agencies.

"Distrusting" and having "little confidence" in the federal government, is far different then fearing the federal government, as you claim.

"People who don't trust the government may own guns because they are afraid that the federal government may try to take their rights away, Curry said. Or, they may not fear the government itself, but may believe the government will not be able to protect them from outside forces."

Well I think it's a small difference between distrust and fear. Just different shades of the same emotions.

Tim McVeigh hated the government enough over it's highhanded response to Waco that he spectacularly blew up a federal building and killed 168 people.

He was executed but the government doesn't rush in guns blazing in a standoff anymore.

The right to bear arms is there to prevent the rule of tyranny.

McVeigh just took it to a pre-emptive extreme to in his mind put the government in it's place.

"People who don't trust the government may own guns because they are afraid that the federal government may try to take their rights away, Curry said. Or, they may not fear the government itself, but may believe the government will not be able to protect them from outside forces."

To tie back into your original point; politically, where do they think the government taking away rights is gonna come from? Most likely the more socialist end of the political spectrum.

Where is the effort to take guns away coming from? The egalitarian (quazi-socialist) left.

What "outside forces" are they talking about? thieves and murderers? A signature someone once had on here was pretty apt (I think it may have been one of Fossten's); "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." If that is the "outside forces" being talked about, then that only strengthens the argument against socialism, it seems.

I don't think that most American's really think the government isn't capable of protecting them from foreign (outside) forces. Depending on who is in power, the government may be effectively unwilling to do so, by not incapable.

Well I think it's a small difference between distrust and fear. Just different shades of the same emotions.

I wouldn't characterize distrust as an emotion. Distrust is a view or perception that can be informed by certain emotions like fear, but also by observable facts and tendencies.

And distrust of the government in what sense? That is an awful vague claim.

I would imagine that most people in this country at all informed would not trust the government to do what is best for the American people. The government is going to do what is best for themselves, and are only going to do what is best for the American people in as much as the American people's interest lines up with the government's interest.

So the "distrust of the government" is more accurately described as "not trusting the government to prioritize the interests of the American people over their own interests."

That is why the Framers created a very limited republican form of government. The government can only go so far in pursuing it's own self interest, which is more strongly tied to the people's interest through election. The system of check and balances is in place to pit the various branches of government against each other and divide their interests so as to avoid grabs for power by the government. The second amendment is the ultimate check on the government.

Tim McVeigh hated the government enough over it's highhanded response to Waco that he spectacularly blew up a federal building and killed 168 people.

He was executed but the government doesn't rush in guns blazing in a standoff anymore.

I wouldn't put too much weight in the McVeigh thing. That was one nut job (working with another) in response to the ineptitude of the Clinton administration in Waco. I think it is a rather isolated example that you can't draw too much from.

The right to bear arms is there to prevent the rule of tyranny.

No argument there. As I said, it is the ultimate check on the government.

To get back to the socialism vs. capitalism thing. What you are seeing in Europe is the beginnings of stage 2 (Silent War Between Government and Its Citizens) from Fossten's post:

At some point, the unwashed masses suspect their politicians aren’t really gentle any more much less benevolent. This is where a silent war between government and people erupts. It’s a blurry transition through never-never land when the politicians still claim to be gentle but the people sense that they have gone from being protectors of the public good and private property to a plunderers of it; from morality to immorality.


Since the change to pure socialism is much more gradual then what Marx originally described, it is a very gradual turn.

I am not as fatalistic as the article Fossten posted. I like to think of myself as a realistic optimist here. Socialism is inherently flawed and will always collapse in on itself, given enough time. The only question tends to be how far down the socialist road, and how much damage will be cause before the populace turns away.

We are starting to see that turn in Europe at a far earlier stage (before full socialism is even achieved) then we did in actual socialist countries, where full socialism had already been achieved and the government had to turn tyrannical before the change occurred.

I wouldn't put too much weight in the McVeigh thing. That was one nut job (working with another) in response to the ineptitude of the Clinton administration in Waco. I think it is a rather isolated example that you can't draw too much from. LOL at your euphemism. "Ineptitude" - as though they accidentally hosed down the place with machine gun mounted gunships and unintentionally burned the place down. Oops! :mad:

Waco's not an isolated example. There's Ruby Ridge, the MOVE massacre, and many others. And you can draw from Waco that the government now resorts to using machine guns on citizens who fail to pay their taxes.

LOL at your euphemism. "Ineptitude" - as though they accidentally hosed down the place with machine gun mounted gunships and unintentionally burned the place down. Oops! :mad:

Waco's not an isolated example. There's Ruby Ridge, the MOVE massacre, and many others. And you can draw from Waco that the government now resorts to using machine guns on citizens who fail to pay their taxes.

I've heard of Ruby ridge..but the MOVE massacre? Hadn't heard of that got any links?

If, as you point out, the lesson from Waco is that government gets angry when it doesn't get paid, that would only strengthen the case against socialism.

Linky to MOVE story (http://atsquish.blogspot.com/2006/03/pig-riots-massacre-of-move.html)

And there's Ken Ballew also. And the Battle of Athens, and the Bonus Army, both a little further back in history.

Hell, if you really want to get technical, Lincoln himself is responsible for the massacre of over 600,000 men. That was simply the FEDS bullying the STATES. And now we have a colossal Fed government. Thanks Abe!

Hell, if you really want to get technical, Lincoln himself is responsible for the massacre of over 600,000 men. That was simply the FEDS bullying the STATES. And now we have a colossal Fed government. Thanks Abe!

There are a lot of negatives that can be placed on Lincoln's doorstep. Still, he was effectively cleaning up what the Framers either couldn't or wouldn't. Namely resolving the promise this country was founded on (all men are created equal) with the reality of slavery.

I still consider him probably the greatest President in U.S. history.

I used to think the same thing, but then I read a little history that they don't teach in schools.

Lincoln could have solved the slavery problem without a single casualty. He could have [drumroll please] let the market solve itself!

The war was mostly about states' rights. Slavery was on its way out already. The slave transport business had already shut down years before, and only a fraction of landowners still owned slaves by 1860. In fact, the only way to continue having slaves was to get them to procreate.

With the advent of machinery, it was much cheaper to automate than to support and cultivate slaves at that time. The government could have just bought up all the slaves from the south and then set them free. Would have cost a pretty penny, but a lot less than the war did, both in money and lives.

Once again, government interference causes more destruction than it solves problems.

I used to think the same thing, but then I read a little history that they don't teach in schools.

Lincoln could have solved the slavery problem without a single casualty. He could have [drumroll please] let the market solve itself!

The war was mostly about states' rights. Slavery was on its way out already. The slave transport business had already shut down years before, and only a fraction of landowners still owned slaves by 1860. In fact, the only way to continue having slaves was to get them to procreate.

With the advent of machinery, it was much cheaper to automate than to support and cultivate slaves at that time. The government could have just bought up all the slaves from the south and then set them free. Would have cost a pretty penny, but a lot less than the war did, both in money and lives.

Once again, government interference causes more destruction than it solves problems.

Interesting, I hadn't heard that before. The whole free market angle.

Still, I would argue that it was the president's imperative to work to end slavery. That is due to the fact that slavery was unconstitutional (even then) and it is the president's job to uphold the constitution.

Slavery wasn't like a recession in the economy, or environmental protection, or what not, where the government is not constitutionally obligated or empowered to act, and is unconstitutionally expanding their power by acting in those areas.

That said, Lincoln himself had said that if he could preserve the union without ending slavery, he would. It was clear that his motive was first and foremost the preservation of the union, which was bigger then slavery. That was also his office's biggest priority, by design; to protect the nation.

Also, remember who first made it about slavery, the South. They wrongly assumed that Lincoln was going to abolish slavery, so they forced his hand by seceding. While the war had an undertone of slavery at that point, it was mainly about preserving the union, which Lincoln's own words have indicated that was his ultimate motive.

The Emancipation Proclamation, while effectively giving the war a stronger slavery angle that in many ways overshadowed the preservation of the union purpose, was ultimately a calculated political and military move on Lincoln's part.

By enacting the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln isolated the South from European (especially British) aid, as most of Europe was decidedly anti-slavery at that point.

While some of the methods were not perfect to achieve that end of national preservation, they were justified by the reality of the situation, IMO. At some point ideals have to give way to reality, and if the situation of the civil war doesn't fall under that, then what does?

I am not sure if the government buying the slaves from the South would've worked. The government back then was financially a lot smaller, so I wonder if they would've been able to buy them. In addition, Southern culture was strongly built around slavery. Most of the white population in the South didn't own slaves, but still supported slavery. You have to also consider the fact that the South chose to secede simply due to the fact that Lincoln was elected, without any actual anti-slavery action taken on his part to provoke them. I doubt that the South would've acted too kindly to the North trying to buy the slaves.

Just realized I made another long winded post. Sorry 'bout that. I am a huge Lincoln fan (probably more so then Reagan). :)

Depends on how you look at it.

The South wanted a federalist nation, with strong emphasis on states' rights. The North wouldn't allow it, so the South seceded. They wouldn't have fired a shot if not for the Northern invasion. I chalk up the 600,000+ deaths to Lincoln's act of aggression. "Preserve the Union" is a talking point cliche just as much as "national security" is, and was only used to spin the actual invasion and slaughter of hundreds of thousands.

And look at the aftermath. The Fed grew into the big, bloated, corrupt, stinking, disease-ridden, devouring mass that it is today.

And again, how do you justify the cost of the war versus the cost of buying up the slaves? At best, Lincoln grossly miscalculated, not considering the lives that would be lost. At worst, he was a tyrant.

The South wanted a federalist nation, with strong emphasis on states' rights. The North wouldn't allow it, so the South seceded. They wouldn't have fired a shot if not for the Northern invasion. I chalk up the 600,000+ deaths to Lincoln's act of aggression. "Preserve the Union" is a talking point cliche just as much as "national security" is, and was only used to spin the actual invasion and slaughter of hundreds of thousands.

I don't think I would characterize the preservation of the union as simply a cliche talking point...

And look at the aftermath. The Fed grew into the big, bloated, corrupt, stinking, disease-ridden, devouring mass that it is today.

No doubt there. One of the unforeseen consequences (probably the biggest negative to the fallout from the civil war) was the change in dynamic between the federal and state governments; laying the groundwork for the expansion of the federal government under FDR and later presidents.

However, if Lincoln and the North hadn't done what they had, there would likely be no United States of America today. How would that have effected WWI, WWII, the Cold War, etc. etc.? It is very possible that we would be living under a socialist tyranny today, if we weren't already speaking German. :eek:

Lincoln and the government of the United States had the more immediate and realistic concern of the preservation of the union, as opposed to the long term and more abstract concern of federalism and states rights.

A prime example of the trend of government to focus on short term, immediate concerns at the expense of longer term abstract concerns.;)

And again, how do you justify the cost of the war versus the cost of buying up the slaves? At best, Lincoln grossly miscalculated, not considering the lives that would be lost. At worst, he was a tyrant.

Well, I am not convinced that the North attempting to buy up the slaves would've kept the south from seceding. In fact, I think it would have served to further drive them to secession, given the politics of the time and the culture of the south (built around slavery).

It is kinda funny that we have gone from discussing a fall into socialism, to debating the civil war. :) ;)

However, if Lincoln and the North hadn't done what they had, there would likely be no United States of America today. How would that have effected WWI, WWII, the Cold War, etc. etc.? It is very possible that we would be living under a socialist tyranny today, if we weren't already speaking German. :eek: I'm not so sure of that. Look at the way Europe looked after WWII as well. Completely changed country structure. Was it all a good thing? And I'm not sure that Germany would have had the stones to attack us across the ocean, considering Hitler didn't even have the stones to go after Switzerland in his own back yard.

It's possible that Russia may have prevailed over Germany without our help, and it's also possible that without FDR's isolationism, Japan might've left us alone as well. There's really no way to tell, it's just a series of maybes. Note that despite Germany losing the war, and despite our help during the cold war, Germany is still socialist today.

One thing is for sure, the cold war was at least partly the result of two things - 1) The development of the atomic bomb and 2) Our unwillingness to beat the Russians to the punch in invading Germany. Then we sat back and let them carve up Europe. Patton said we should have duked it out with them immediately, and that might have avoided a cold war too.

Do you see my point? There have been a lot of things that could have gone either way. It's more likely, given the "Back to the Future" paradox dilemma, that the entire history of the world would have been different had Lincoln not marched on the South. But one thing is for sure, it's important to learn the lessons of that war, not the least of which is that government interference causes more harm than good.

And now we're back on topic! :D

Works for me. :)

Ok,
So other than the collapse of the communist USSR can you offer some examples of this sad road you're talking about.
The conservatives in Canada had much the same to say when Trudeau became Prime Minister in 1968 and moved the country to the left.
Although I didn't like him at the time, Trudeau was a brilliant(unlike Obama) charismatic man.
He killed FLQ terrorism when he called out the army under the War Measures Act in response to a kidnapping and murder.
He repatriated the constitution from England and did a pirouette behind the Queens back.
Canada today is an image of Trudeau's vision.

Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Swinger, Philosopher, Prime Minister

He slid down banisters, dated movie stars and wore a red rose in his lapel. Pierre Elliott Trudeau is arguably the most charismatic prime minister in Canada's history. But he was more than just charisma – Trudeau helped shape Canada with his vision of a unified, bilingual, multicultural "just society." Throughout his 16 years as prime minister, he faced some heavy criticism. But when Trudeau died on Sept. 28, 2000, the nation mourned the man who, in the words of one biographer, "haunts us still."

And then there was Fuddle Duddle

Fuddle duddle is a euphemistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism) substitution for "f u c k (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/:q:q:q:q)" or "f u c k o f f (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/:q:q:q:q_off)", the most famous use of which was by Pierre Trudeau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Trudeau), during his tenure as Prime Minister of Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_Canada).
In February 1971 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971), a minor scandal arose when opposition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Opposition_%28Canada%29) MPs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_of_Parliament) accused Trudeau of having mouthed, "F u c k o f f ," at them in the House of Commons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_House_of_Commons). When pressed by television reporters on the matter, Trudeau denied having mouthed "F u c k o f f" (much less actually spoken it, or anything at all) at the times in question, but freely admitted having moved his lips; and he answered the question, "What were you thinking, when you moved your lips?" by rhetorically asking, "What is the nature of your thoughts, gentlemen, when you say 'fuddle duddle' or something like that?" One opinion is Trudeau took "fuddle duddle" from the official Hansard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hansard) transcript of his words for that parliamentary session, and the Hansard reporter either read Trudeau's lip-movements differently than the accusing MPs, or read them likewise but chose to write down the now-notorious words in their stead.
Thus it is unclear what Trudeau actually mouthed, whether he ever denied having mouthed "f u c k" at all (arguably he denied only having mouthed "f u c k o f f" in particular), and whether he claimed really to have mouthed "fuddle duddle". Nevertheless, the popular perception remains that he said "f u c k" and afterward claimed that it was "fuddle duddle".
__________________________________________________ ______________

Any examples to support your contentions?

1. Cuba, China, North Korea, Laos, Vietnam, Romania, Bulgaria, Angola, Zimbabwe, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Grenada, Poland, Mozambique, Somalia...I could go on and on...

North Korea is a notable current example of stage three.

2. All you've done is post a story about some flashy prime minister who likes to party and act like a rock star. I don't see any evidence where Trudeau has created a Utopian Socialist Canada. I posit that Canadians have less freedom than Americans do. Remember, socialism isn't just about economics, it's about personal freedom as well.

Trudeau passed away in 2000 at age 82.
There is no such thing as utopia here on Earth.
Most of the countries you list above are former
Soviet communist satellites.
Freedom is mostly economic.
Can't do much without money.
Personal freedoms are dependant on what one wants to do.
The US is closer to a militaristic police state than Canada will ever be.
DHS, ATF, FBI, DEA, EPA, and other police type agencies don't exhist up north.

How much freedom one has is dependant on one's point of view.
http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2005/07/us-vs-canada-economic-freedom.html

Excerpt below:

As a result, the report's authors find that Canadian provinces are disadvantaged in pursuing economic opportunity, recognizing that "since Canadian provinces have relatively low levels of economic freedom, Canadians are likely to continue to experience lower standards of living relative to American states." As a result, in this "contest" between the U.S. and Canada, the U.S. wins.

Another point of view
http://www.sexworktoronto.com/legal/U.S.%20vs.%20Canadian%20Rights%20&%20Freedoms.html

Excerpt:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Similar to the U.S., it is a bill of rights entrenched in the more recent Constitution of Canada (Constitution Act, 1982). While in some ways it is similar to the U.S., it upholds individual rights far more than in the U.S. It is more similar to the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Supreme Court of Canada has clearly interrupted the Canadian rights as more generous and broad than the U.S. Supreme Court has with the U.S. Bill of Rights.


Canada is also energy self sufficient, has lots of resourses, doesn't owe 53 trillion in long term debt like the US, half of which is to Communist China, or even 5.3 trillion(Canada has 30 million people vs US 300 million)

If there is an economic meltdown with hyperinflation in the US in the next 10 years as some are predicting freedom will become a platitude.

Most of the countries you list above are former
Soviet communist satellites.So? They were countries, and they also failed. It's a testament to the failure of socialism/communism that the USSR had all those countries and yet they all failed.

I agree with your statements about the police state here in America, and our stupid government decisions, but that all goes back to government interference, which is another form of socialism. Your post serves to strengthen my premise.

Opps. I reposted most of this response in post #27 because I thought it didn't take. Sorry.;)

Most of the countries you list above are former
Soviet communist satellites.
Yes, but they were still communist nations. Those are much better to judge socialism by then quazi-socialist, egalitarian states.

...There is no such thing as utopia here on Earth...
...Freedom is mostly economic....
...Can't do much without money...
...Personal freedoms are dependant on what one wants to do...

Then why base policy and political programs on an ideal (socialism) that takes away freedom to unrealistically and irrationally attempt to achieve a utopia on Earth; effective turning the perfect into the enemy of the good?


The US is closer to a militaristic police state than Canada will ever be.
DHS, ATF, FBI, DEA, EPA, and other police type agencies don't exhist up north.

There is no way you can compare America and any of the aspects that might lead someone to conclude that it is close to a police state, to actual socialist countries and come out in favor of socialism.

If you are comparing the quazi-socialist nations of the western world to America, you need to show that it is the socialist aspects that are making the nation less prone to being a police state, and not the more democratic and/or capitalist aspects.

Besides, it is not suprising that Canada isn't a police state. Haven't you hear the reason there are no orgies in Canada? Because there would be too many thank you letters to write afterward. :lol:

"Your not my buddy, pal!":D

Canada is also energy self sufficient, has lots of resources...

A: Canada is not near as productive as America.

B: The more "egalitarian minded" uber-socialist enviromentalists are the ones who have kept us from being energy self sufficient.

Then why base policy and political programs on an ideal (socialism) that takes away freedom to unrealistically and irrationally attempt to achieve a utopia on Earth; effective turning the perfect into the enemy of the good?
__________________________________________________ ______________

There is self interest on the part of the rich to pay the poor some money.

Money buys protection.

This picture sums it up nicely.

There is self interest on the part of the rich to pay the poor some money.

Money buys protection.

You love to post pictures! I will admit, most of them are pretty funny. :)

Yes, there is a self interest for the rich to help the poor (that doesn't necessarily always mean pay them). But from a "protection" POV, it is through generating good will toward the rich. That can only happen when the giving is voluntary.

The giving is not voluntary is socialism. In fact, there is a bigger class gap between the rich and the poor in socialism, and more animosity and resentment toward the rich.

Capitalism functions on the idea of self-interest (more then any other aspect of human nature). Socialism functions on the denial of self-interest (except when that self-interest is in line with what is best for society as a whole, which is the chief focus).

In fact the issue of self-interest exposes the biggest flaw in socialism and the biggest philosophical point American conservatism and capitalism have over socialism; the understanding of human nature. Specifically with regards to weather that nature is on the whole good and/or bad, and if the philosophy attempts to work around that understanding of human nature, or change it.

A picture is worth a thousand words, a good funny one even more.

My parents escaped the Nazis and Communists in WWII and made their way to Canada.

Both pharmacy graduates, they opened a drug store in 1954 Toronto, worked hard for 17 years and sold out to Shoppers Drug Mart (a large chain in Canada) in 1972.
My father invested his million or so dollars well and didn't have another paying job for 33 years till he passed away in 2005.My mother worked(and still works) part-time just to do something,have some space and her own spending money.

He spent his time as an intellectual, went to U of T and became a Dr. prof, edited a Ukrainian newspaper,wrote books and articles and had a radio show 2 hrs a week. He also smuggled US currency taped to his body and in specially made shoes into the USSR in the mid 70's to fund the resistance to Communism and Russian Imperialism.

After the Soviet collapse in 1990 and the dawn of Ukrainian independance he raised enough money to put 3000 students through university for the diplomatic corp and government in his home country.

As a well healed successful (after 25 years of hard work)
businessman, I know a lot about the motivation of self interest and the role of capital.
If I pay a worker 25,000.00 I also make roughly 25,000.00 off his labor but of course I never tell him that.

Many of my press operators are paid piece work (a very self disciplining method which sounds so 19th century) so it's in their self interest to make as many pieces as possible.

They get 1.25 and I net net 3-4.00 for each of 300 pieces that get made in 4 6 hour shifts. (the workers work a straight 6 hours, making as much or more than they used to in 8 hours with a 1/2 hr lunch and 2 15 min breaks.

We make about 30,000 pieces a month out of 5 presses that run 24/5 and have 2 more presses coming into service shortly for a new product line.

They get a Euro 36 hr week and we get an extra shift for the same overhead.

Every government redistributes wealth for social purposes.

"Yes, there is a self interest for the rich to help the poor (that doesn't necessarily always mean pay them). But from a "protection" POV, it is through generating good will toward the rich. That can only happen when the giving is voluntary" shagdrum quote

We're not talking about generating good will, just giving
the smallest amount possible to keep most poor people from acting up and stealing or commiting other crimes so we don't have to call out the police to put them down.

Poor man want to be rich, rich man want to be king, as the Bruce Springsteen song goes.

Local police are primarily paid by property owner taxes and enforce laws that this group wants.

Communism has been a total failure everywhere except China where it has morphed into a quasi capitalist system.

But Western European countries are very socialist by American standards and not on the verge of any collapse with a strong Euro being prima facia evidence of investors faith in the Euro future.

Besides, it is not suprising that Canada isn't a police state. Haven't you hear the reason there are no orgies in Canada? Because there would be too many thank you letters to write afterward. :lol:



"If you are comparing the quazi-socialist nations of the western world to America, you need to show that it is the socialist aspects that are making the nation less prone to being a police state, and not the more democratic and/or capitalist aspects."

Yes we're so polite and well mannered
Our socialist aspects coincide with our low crime rate requiring less police and even less laws.
Gun control limits firearm deaths so it the socialist aspects do make the nation less prone to being a police state.


Never wrote thankyou notes after orgies though but there was this set of twins.....:D :p :dancefool

Gun control limits firearm deaths so it the socialist aspects do make the nation less prone to being a police state.

Wrong. Care to tango with me on this one?

Our socialist aspects coincide with our low crime rate requiring less police and even less laws.

Still, is that simply correlation? Or is there some causation there, and in which direction?

Another question would be where do the high crime rates in America come from? I am sure you could probably demonstrate that most states that are more conservative have less violent crimes, but is that due to more conservative (and less socialist) policies, or simply due to lower population?

Places like New Orleans, New York, Los Angles, etc. All have very high crime rates and all are very egalitarian.

Gun control limits firearm deaths so it the socialist aspects do make the nation less prone to being a police state.

Yeah, this issue is really Fossten's baby. But I will say that, at least here in the USA, gun control laws do not limit firearm deaths. In fact, the case could be made that they increase them, by preventing law abiding citizens from having guns while criminals (who would ignore the law anyway) have them.

Never wrote thankyou notes after orgies though but there was this set of twins.....:D :p :dancefool

Well now that demands a story! maybe pics? Is that where you got that pic of the gun in the cleavage? :)

Well now that demands a story! maybe pics? Is that where you got that pic of the gun in the cleavage? :)

I'll have to plead the 5th here and any pics I have are XXX but lets just say I've had the luck and priveledge to have had 2 women (some that were bi) at the same time on a half dozen occasions in my life.
Makes ya feel like the King with a smile that just won't go away!

Gun control in the US is a moot point.
With over 100 million handguns and countless rifles it's probably better to own a gun especially in high crime areas.
SCOTUS has given it's final blessing on guns so there isn't much to argue about.

My point is that the less guns out there the less chance there is of getting shot, deliberately or by accident. A simple premise.

In Canada as well as in many non police state countries only the police and licensed private investigators are allowed to own handguns.
Gun collectors are allowed but can only transport their weapons in a locked box on an approved route to the gun club range.
Get caught off route and the gun is confiscated.

Criminals get their guns through the black market most of which are smuggled into the country from the US or steal them from gun collectors.
Even with that there is still a lot less handguns available.

The history of the 2 countries has a large part in the current situation.
America was(is?) the wild west where people were on their own and needed the protection.
Canada was founded by British Empire loyalists and most people didn't have a problem with that.
The Americans rebelled against the British and fought and killed off (most of) the indigenous Indians.
The gun is a much more ingrained part of the US culture than that of Canada and other countries.

My point is that the less guns out there the less chance there is of getting shot, deliberately or by accident. A simple premise.

And a misleading one.

Check out this article by Dave Kopel:


A World Without Guns
Be forewarned: It’s not a pretty picture

By Dave Kopel, Paul Gallant, and Joanne Eisen of the Independence Institute
December 5, 2001 9:40 a.m.


"Imagine the world without guns" was a bumper sticker that began making the rounds after the murder of ex-Beatle John Lennon on December 18, 1980. Last year, Lennon's widow, Yoko Ono, followed up on that sentiment by announcing she would become a spokeswoman for Handgun Control, Inc. (which later changed its name to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and which was previously named the National Council to Control Handguns).

So let's try hard to imagine what a world without guns would look like. It isn't hard to do. But be forewarned: It's not a pretty picture.

The way to get to a gun-free world, the gun-prohibition groups tell us, is to pass laws banning them. We can begin by imagining the enactment of laws which ban all non-government possession of firearms.

It's not likely that local bans will do the job. Take, for example, New York's 1911 Sullivan Law, which imposed an exceedingly restrictive handgun-licensing scheme on New York City. In recent decades, administrative abuses have turned the licensing statute into what amounts to prohibition, except for tenacious people who navigate a deliberately obstructive licensing system.

Laws affect mainly those willing to obey them. And where there's an unfulfilled need — and money to be made — there's usually a way around the law. Enter the black market, which flourishes all the more vigorously with ever-increasing restrictions and prohibitions. In TV commercials that aired last August, New York City Republican (sort of) mayoral candidate Mike Bloomberg informed voters that "in 1993, there were as many as 2 million illegal guns on the street." The insinuation was that all those guns were in the hands of criminals, and the implication was that confiscating the guns would make the city a safer place. What Bloomberg never explained was how he planned to shut down the black market.

So let's imagine, instead, a nationwide gun ban, or maybe even a worldwide ban.

Then again, heroin and cocaine have been illegal in the United States, and most of the world, for nearly a century. Huge resources have been devoted to suppressing their production, sale, and use, and many innocent people have been sacrificed in the crossfire of the "drug war." Yet heroin and cocaine are readily available on the streets of almost all large American cities, and at prices that today are lower than in previous decades.

Perhaps a global prohibition law isn't good enough. Maybe imposing the harshest penalty possible for violation of such a law will give it real teeth: mandatory life in prison for possession of a gun, or even for possession of a single bullet. (We won't imagine the death penalty, since the Yoko crowd doesn't like the death penalty.)

On second thought, Jamaica's Gun Court Act of 1974 contained just such a penalty, and even that wasn't sufficient. On August 18, 2001, Jamaican Melville Cooke observed that today, "the only people who do not have an illegal firearm , are those who do not want one." Violent crime in Jamaica is worse than ever, as gangsters and trigger-happy police commit homicides with impunity, and only the law-abiding are disarmed.

Yet the Jamaican government wants to globalize its failed policy. In July 2001, Burchell Whiteman, Jamaica's Minister of Education, Youth and Culture spoke at the U.N. Disarmament Conference to demand the "implementation of measures that would limit the production of weapons to levels that meet the needs for defence and national security."

And as long as governments are allowed to have guns, there will be gun factories to steal from. Some of these factories might have adequate security measures to prevent theft, including theft by employees. But in a world with about 200 nations, most of them governed by kleptocracies, it's preposterous to imagine that some of those "government-only" factories won't become suppliers for the black market. Alternatively, corrupt military and police could supply firearms to the black market.

We'd better revise our strategy. Rather than wishing for laws (which cannot, even imaginably, create a gun-free world), let's be more ambitious, and imagine that all guns vanish. Even guns possessed by government agents. And let's close all the gun factories, too. That ought to put the black market out of business.

Voilà! Instant peace!

Back to the Drawing Board

Then again.....it's not very difficult to make a workable firearm. As J. David Truby points out in his book Zips, Pipes, and Pens: Arsenal of Improvised Weapons, "Today, all of the improvised/modified designs [of firearms] remain well within the accomplishment of the mechanically unskilled citizen who does not have access to firearms through other means."

In the article "Gun-Making as a Cottage Industry," Charles Chandler observed that Americans "have a reputation as ardent hobbyists and do-it-yourselfers, building everything from ship models to home improvements." The one area they have not been very active in is that of firearm construction. And that, Chandler explained, is only because "well-designed and well-made firearms are generally available as items of commerce."

A complete gun ban, or highly restrictive licensing amounting to near-ban, would create a real incentive for gun making to become a "cottage industry".

It's already happening in Great Britain, a consequence of the complete ban on civilian possession of handguns imposed by the Firearms Act of 1997. Not only are the Brits swamped today with illegally imported firearms, but local, makeshift gun factories have sprung up to compete.

British police already know about some of them. Officers from Scotland Yard's Metropolitan Police Serious Crime Group South recently recovered 12 handgun replicas which were converted to working models. An auto repair shop in London served as the front for the novel illegal gun factory. Police even found some enterprising gun-makers turning screwdrivers into workable firearms, and producing firearms disguised as ordinary key rings.

In short, closing the Winchester Repeating Arms factory — and all the others — will not spell the end of the firearm business.

Just take the case of Bougainville, the largest island in the South Pacific's Solomon Islands chain. Bougainville was the site of a bloody, decade-long secessionist uprising against domination by the government of Papua New Guinea, aided and abetted by the Australian government. The conflict there was the longest-running confrontation in the Pacific since the end of World War II, and caused the deaths of 15,000 to 20,000 islanders.

During the hostilities, which included a military blockade of the island, one of the goals was to deprive the Bougainville Revolutionary Army (BRA) of its supply of arms. The tactic failed: the BRA simply learned how to make its own guns using materiel and ammunition left over from the War.

In fact, at the United Nations Asia Pacific Regional Disarmament Conference held in Spring 2001, it was quietly admitted that the BRA, within ten years of its formation, had managed to manufacture a production copy of the M16 automatic rifle and other machine guns. (That makes one question the real intent behind the U.N. Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspects, which followed several months later: the U.N. leadership can't be so daft as to fail to recognize the implications for world disarmament after learning of the success of the Bougainville Revolutionary Army.)

If this single island of Bougainville can produce its own weapons, the Philippine Islands have long had a thriving cottage industry to manufacture firearms — despite very restrictive gun laws imposed by the Marcos dictatorship and some other regimes.

It looks like we'll need to revisit our fantasy, yet again.

Okay. By proclamation of Kopel, Gallant, and Eisen, not only do all firearms — every last one of them — vanish instantly, but there shall be no further remanufacturing.

That last part's a bit tricky. Auto repair shops, hobbyists, revolutionaries — everyone with decent machine shop skills — can make a gun from something. This takes us down the same road as drug prohibition: With primary anti-drug laws having proven themselves unenforceable, secondary laws have been added to prohibit possession of items which could be used to manufacture drugs. Even making suspicious purchases at a gardening store can earn one a "dynamic entry" visit from the local SWAT team.

But laws proscribing the possession of gun-manufacturing items would have to be even broader than laws against possession of drug-manufacturing items, because there are so many tools which can be used to make guns, or be made into guns. What we'd really have to do is carefully control every possible step in the gun-making process. That means the registration of all machine tools, and the federal licensing of plumbers (similar to current federal licensure of pharmacies), auto mechanics, and all those handymen with their screwdrivers. And we'd need to stamp a serial number on pipes (potential gun barrels) in every bathroom and automobile — and everywhere else one finds pipes — and place all the serial numbers in a federal registry.

Today, the antigun lobbies who claim they don't want to ban all guns still insist that registration of every single gun and licensing of every gun owner is essential to keep guns from falling into the wrong hands. If so, it's hard to argue that licensing and registration of gun manufacturing items would not be essential to prevent illicit production of guns.

Thus, we would have to control every part of the manufacturing process. That would add up to a very expensive, complicated proposition. Even a 1% noncompliance rate with the "Firearms Precursors Control Act" would leave an immense supply of materials available for black-market gun making.

In order to ensure total conformity with the act, it's difficult to imagine leaving most existing constitutional protections in place. The mind boggles at the kinds of search and seizure laws required to make certain that people do not possess unregistered metal pipes or screwdrivers!

For example, just to enforce a ban on actual guns (not gun precursors), the Jamaican government needed to wipe out many common law controls on police searches, and many common law guarantees of fair trials. We'd have to trash the Constitution in order to completely prevent a black market in gun precursors from taking hold. Still, as the gun-prohibition lobby always says, if it saves just one life, it would be worth it.

But, what if, despite these extreme measures, the black market still functioned — as it almost always does, when there is sufficient demand?

It's time to seriously revisit our strategy for a gun-free world. Maybe there's a shortcut around all of this.

Okay. We're going to make a truly radical, no-holds-barred proposal this time, take a quantum leap in science, and go where no man has gone before. There may be those who scoff at our proposal, but it can succeed where all other strategies have failed.

We, Kopel, Gallant, and Eisen, hereby imagine that, from this day forth, the laws of chemical combustion are revoked. We hereby imagine that gunpowder — and all similar compounds — no longer have the capacity to burn and release the gases necessary to propel a bullet.

Peace for Our Time

Finally, for the first time, a gun-free world is truly within our grasp — and it's time to see what man hath wrought. And for that, all we have to do is take a look back at the kind of world our ancestors lived in.

To say that life in the pre-gunpowder world was violent would be an understatement. Land travel, especially over long distances, was fraught with danger from murderers, robbers, and other criminals. Most women couldn't protect themselves from rape, except by granting unlimited sexual access to one male in exchange for protection from other males.

Back then, weapons depended on muscle power. Advances in weaponry primarily magnified the effect of muscle power. The stronger one is, the better one's prospects for fighting up close with an edged weapon like a sword or a knife, or at a distance with a bow or a javelin (both of which require strong arms). The superb ability of such "old-fashioned" edged weapons to inflict carnage on innocents was graphically demonstrated by the stabbing deaths of eight second graders on June 8, 2001, by former school clerk Mamoru Takuma in gun-free Osaka, Japan.

When it comes to muscle power, young men usually win over women, children, and the elderly. It was warriors who dominated society in gun-free feudal Europe, and a weak man usually had to resign himself to settle on a life of toil and obedience in exchange for a place within the castle walls when evil was afoot.

And what of the women? According to the custom of jus primae noctis, a lord had the right to sleep with the bride of a newly married serf on the first night — a necessary price for the serf to pay — in exchange for the promise of safety and security (does that ring a bell?). Not uncommonly, this arrangement didn't end with the wedding night, since one's lord had the practical power to take any woman, any time. Regardless of whether jus primae noctis was formally observed in a region, rich, strong men had little besides their conscience to stop them from having their way with women who weren't protected by another wealthy strongman.

But there's yet another problem with imagining gunpowder out of existence: We get rid of firearms, but we don't get rid of guns. With the advent of the blow gun some 40,000 years ago, man discovered the efficacy of a tube for concentrating air power and aiming a missile, making the eventual appearance of airguns inevitable. So gunpowder or no gunpowder, all we've been doing, thus far, amounts to quibbling over the means for propelling something out of a tube.

Airguns date back to somewhere around the beginning of the 17th century. And we don't mean airguns like the puny Daisy Red Ryder BB Gun with a compass in the stock, longed for by Ralphie in Jean Shepard's 1984 classic A Christmas Story ("No, Ralphie, you can't have a BB gun — you'll shoot your eye out!").

No, we're talking serious lethality here. The kind of powder-free gun that can hurl a 7.4 oz. projectile with a muzzle energy of 1,082 foot-pounds. Compare that to the 500 foot-pounds of muzzle energy from a typical .357 Magnum round! Even greater projectile energies are achievable using gases like nitrogen or helium, which create higher pressures than air does.

Before the advent of self-contained powder cartridge guns, airguns were considered serious weapons. In fact, three hundred years ago, air-powered guns were among the most powerful and accurate large-bore rifles around. While their biggest disadvantages were cost and intricacy of manufacture, they were more dependable and could be fired more rapidly than firearms of the same period. A butt-reservoir .31 airgun was carried by Lewis and Clark on their historic expedition, and used successfully for taking game. [See Robert D. Beeman, "Proceeding On to the Lewis & Clark Airgun," Airgun Revue 6 (2000): 13-33.] Airguns even saw duty in military engagements more than 200 years ago.

Today, fully automatic M-16-style airguns are a reality. It was only because of greater cost relative to powder guns, and the greater convenience afforded by powder arms, that airgun technology was never pushed to its lethal limits.

Other non-powder weapon systems have competed for man's attention, as well. The 20th century was the bloodiest century in the history of mankind. And while firearms were used for killing (for example, with machine guns arranged to create interlocking fields of fire in the trench warfare of World War I), they were hardly essential. By far, the greatest number of deliberate killings occurred during the genocides and democides perpetrated by governments against disarmed populations. The instruments of death ranged from Zyklon B gas to machetes to starvation.

Imagine No Claws

[I]To imagine a world with no guns is to imagine a world in which the strong rule the weak, in which women are dominated by men, and in which minorities are easily abused or mass-murdered by majorities. Practically speaking, a firearm is the only weapon that allows a weaker person to defend himself from a larger, stronger group of attackers, and to do so at a distance. As George Orwell observed, a weapon like a rifle "gives claws to the weak."

The failure of imagination among people who yearn for a gun-free world is their naive assumption that getting rid of claws will get rid of the desire to dominate and kill. They fail to acknowledge the undeniable fact that when the weak are deprived of claws (or firearms), the strong will have access to other weapons, including sheer muscle power. A gun-free world would be much more dangerous for women, and much safer for brutes and tyrants.

The one society in history that successfully gave up firearms was Japan in the 17th century, as detailed in Noel Perrin's superb book Giving Up the Gun: Japan's Reversion to the Sword 1543-1879. An isolated island with a totalitarian dictatorship, Japan was able to get rid of the guns. Historian Stephen Turnbull summarizes the result:

[The dictator] Hidéyoshi's resources were such that the edict was carried out to the letter. The growing social mobility of peasants was thus flung suddenly into reverse. The ikki, the warrior-monks, became figures of the past . . . Hidéyoshi had deprived the peasants of their weapons. Iéyasu [the next ruler] now began to deprive them of their self respect. If a peasant offended a samurai he might be cut down on the spot by the samurai's sword. [The Samurai: A Military History (New York: Macmillan, 1977).]

The inferior status of the peasantry having been affirmed by civil disarmament, the Samurai enjoyed kiri-sute gomen, permission to kill and depart. Any disrespectful member of the lower class could be executed by a Samurai's sword.

The Japanese disarmament laws helped mold the culture of submission to authority which facilitated Japan's domination by an imperialist military dictatorship in the 1930s, which led the nation into a disastrous world war.

In short, the one country that created a truly gun-free society created a society of harsh class oppression, in which the strongmen of the upper class could kill the lower classes with impunity. When a racist, militarist, imperialist government took power, there was no effective means of resistance. The gun-free world of Japan turned into just the opposite of the gentle, egalitarian utopia of John Lennon's song "Imagine."

Instead of imagining a world without a particular technology, what about imagining a world in which the human heart grows gentler, and people treat each other decently? This is part of the vision of many of the world's great religions. Although we have a long way to go, there is no denying that hundreds of millions of lives have changed for the better because people came to believe what these religions teach.

If a truly peaceful world is attainable — or, even if unattainable, worth striving for — there is nothing to be gained from the futile attempt to eliminate all guns. A more worthwhile result can flow from the changing of human hearts, one soul at a time.