A Noble Heart Shall Have No Rest If Freedom Fails

When the mere presence of something instigates the urge to regulate it, we have a problem. Those of us who are unable to see the “reasonableness” in “reasonable” restrictions on guns are looked upon as “out of the mainstream”, advocates of mass murder and veritable surrogates for the Adam Lanza’s, Eric Harris’ and Dylan Klebold’s of the world.

What it indicates to me is that there is a cadre of Americans who simply do not believe in individual liberty and the internal self-governance that goes along with it in a responsible and open society. As we have posited time and time again, no law can stop an individual with the intent to commit evil, no matter the severity of the punishment. The law only serves to restrict the freedom of the people who were already committed to ethical behavior and respect for the law in the first place.

The view that man must be regulated by some force from the outside, that his fellow men are in danger from him every minute simply because he exists and he is eternally damned to be a savage in need of oversight and control is nothing new. It is not a coincidence that our modern “progressives” espouse  a like view as this control over the individual is shared with the basis for their ideology – those being Marxism and communism. In the late 1600’s, Thomas Hobbes said:

During the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that conditions called war; and such a war, as if of every man, against every man.

Hobbes, even in his wrongness, was an astute observer of the human condition, writing:

I put for the general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death…

Such is the nature of men, that howsoever they may acknowledge many others to be more witty, or more eloquent, or more learned; yet they will hardly believe there be many so wise as themselves.

There, in Hobbes’ writings, we find the three legged stool that support the forces currently allied against individual liberty:

  • Man (and his society) must be controlled by an external authority because,
  • He is inherently violent, in constant conflict with himself and therefore anti-social,
  • Therefore since we are smarter and more “evolved” than the common man, we must anoint ourselves to positions of authority above the common man – because his intellect is absent the ability to comprehend his own condition and regulate his own affairs.

I do focus much on the writings of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes – and I do so for two reasons – the differences in the philosophies are in stark contrast to each other and were in conflict as our Founders were arriving at the philosophical underpinnings for the experiment in freedom that was the United States of America – and it is the same battle we fight today.

Hobbesian philosophy can be seen in even the most ludicrous of situations, one that I found at once humorous, stupid and dangerous was this:

A dentist acted legally when he fired an assistant that he found attractive simply because he and his wife viewed the woman as a threat to their marriage, the all-male Iowa Supreme Court ruled Friday.

The court ruled 7-0 that bosses can fire employees they see as an “irresistible attraction,” even if the employees have not engaged in flirtatious behavior or otherwise done anything wrong. Such firings may be unfair, but they are not unlawful discrimination under the Iowa Civil Rights Act because they are motivated by feelings and emotions, not gender, Justice Edward Mansfield wrote.

Silly, right? Not so much. What the Iowa Supreme Court did was to enshrine the belief that it is impossible for a male dentist to control his penis when working with an attractive assistant – that he is nothing but an animal subject unbridled base urges. The real story here is that he hired a hottie and his wife got pissed. He knew exactly what he was doing but was too much of a pussy to admit it once he was caught…so we go to court.

This is important because our legal system is built on the principle of stare decisis – respect for precedent – and this ruling will be used in the future to underpin something with eve a higher level of dumbass content.

Let me ask you this: what stops you, right now, going into your next door neighbor’s front yard and digging a hole? Assuming that most of you have neighbors with fenceless front yards, and there is no physical barrier, what is it that stops you?

It is because you respect the rights of personal property. There is no invisible force field that stops you from walking across the yard. You know that John Locke was right:

Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.

Why is it so hard to understand that concept when it comes to guns that are owned by a person who has never had the intent to cause harm to another law-abiding human and has the self-control not to indiscriminately shoot up the neighborhood?

I will warn you here and now – the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes is a blueprint for subjugation and tyranny. Those of you seeking to regulate and legislate your way to control and power over others who do not believe as you do are creating the new Leviathan. It is for the very reason that you attempt to take away my rights because you fear that I may choose to exercise those rights that you should absolutely fear me…and others like me who seek to live in harmony with others, free of your overweening Statolatry.

Your fear of me, your subservience to your “progressive” masters and your willingness to limit your own freedoms in a quest to limit mine are not acceptable to me.

I’ll leave you with this quote, also from Hobbes:

So easy are men to be drawn to believe any thing, from such men as have gotten credit with them; and can with gentleness and dexterity take hold of their fear and ignorance.

A noble hart may have nane ease, gif freedom failye.

2 thoughts on “A Noble Heart Shall Have No Rest If Freedom Fails

  1. Digging a hole in your neighbor’s yard just reminded me of something. My son wrote the following on the FB: “No kidding, found this in front of the house after work. Done in the dark so no one could see. Just FYI, we don’t walk our dogs in the circle in our block.” The picture was of a sign that read “PICK UP AFTER YOUR DOG!!!!!!!!”
    I told my son to keep the sign, scratch out dog and pen in neighbor.

    Interesting Iowa case…..I very much wonder what the verdict would’ve been had the dentist been a cougar….roles reversed, if you will.

  2. Precisely Utah. The human condition is that we are inherently generous, greedy, good, and evil … all at the same time. It’s a conundrum. However, we have laws, and I ask why?

    Why should we have laws? Answer seems easy enough: To deter immoral behavior. However, does it really? We have laws against rape, yet women (and men) are raped. We have laws against theft, yet things are still stolen. We also have laws against assault, yet people are assaulted daily.

    “Locks keep honest men honest.”

    So are going to “ban assault guns” to curb mass murders. My mind drifts to Ted Bundy who was reported to have killed 30-100 women during his crime spree. We call him a “Serial Killer” as that is the moniker applied to him. However, with numbers rising above those recently seen in Connecticut, I would assert that Ted Bundy was a “Mass Murderer”.

    His first confirmed kill … he performed with a speculum, and a metal rod taken from her bed frame (Karen Sparks). Lynda Ann Healy was simply bludgeoned to death. This would be the trend until his capture, bludgeoning, or strangulating his victims. Bundy never once admitted to using a gun of any kind during his murderous reign of terror. Nothing in his background could ever confirm what caused his mind to turn criminal, although speculation continues to this day.

    So I would have to ask, shall we also ban all blunt objects in lieu of Ted Bundy’s actions?

    No, it is not feasible, is it? Could you imagine taking the rights of every individual in the country to own or process a blunt object?

    The outrage would be immense. So, why would anyone not expect the same of a lawful gun owner? The question isn’t the object people. Anything can be weaponized.

    The question is that of morality, and the choices we make.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s