Wednesday, January 2, 2013

This is what it's all about...

Shown to me by the wife, this excellent post really sums up the difference between the individualists and the socialists.
The gun control debate, like all debates with the left, is reducible to the question of whether we are individuals who make our own decisions or a great squishy social mass that helplessly responds to stimuli. Do people kill with guns or does the availability of guns kill people? Do bad eating habits kill people or does the availability of junk food kill people?

To the left these are distinctions without a difference. If a thing is available then it is the cause of the problem. The individual cannot be held accountable for shooting someone if there are guns for sale. Individuals have no role to play because they are not moral actors, only members of a mob responding to stimuli.

You wouldn't blame a dog for overeating; you blame the owners for overfeeding him. Nor do you blame a dog for biting a neighbor. You might punish him, but the punishment is training, not a recognition of authentic responsibility on the part of the canine. And the way that you think of a dog, is the way that the left thinks of you. When you misbehave, the left looks around for your owner.

The cult of the left believes that it is engaged in a great apocalyptic battle with corporations and industrialists for the ownership of the unthinking masses. Its acolytes see themselves as the individuals who have been "liberated" to think for themselves. They make choices. You however are just a member of the unthinking masses. You are not really a person, but only respond to the agendas of your corporate overlords. If you eat too much, it's because corporations make you eat. If you kill, it's because corporations encourage you to buy guns. You are not an individual. You are a social problem.

Individual behavior is a symptom of a social problem. Identify the social problem and you fix the behavior. The individual is nothing, the crowd is everything. Control the mass and you control the individual.
Do go and read the whole thing...


menaiblog said...

Excellent post.

Why stop at guns? Why not let people buy cluster bombs, helicopter gunships & nukes. After all if someone decides to let his little nuke off in Birmignham - which he's bought with his hard earned money - then the families of his 500k or so victims will be greatly comforted to know that it's an individual decision by an evil person what did it & not the availibility of the nuke.

With all due respect, you, your Mrs & the author of the post are nutters. No?

Devil's Kitchen said...


I can't help feeling that you are somewhat missing the point of that article. The point of it is not whether or not people should have guns, or cluster bombs, or nukes.


john b said...

No, I think Menaiblog's point is relevant to the original piece.

Anyone willing to impose restrictions on the private ownership of nuclear bombs is conceding that disorganised freedom and self-government are not unequivocal.

Holding true to the principles that Knish sets forth would imply that I should be allowed to own as many nuclear bombs as I like, as long as I'm justly punished for the death and property destruction caused if I then choose to set them off in New York City.

If you're willing to accept that as a policy outcome, Knish's position is tenable. If you aren't, then you're inherently accepting that there *is* a trade-off between individual responsibility and rules that safeguard the wider community (despite penalising responsible and irresponsible nuclear bomb owners alike).

FlipC said...

Damnit I liked having lead in my petrol until our namby-pamby government decided it was 'harmful'.

I liked it when manufacturers could make cot beds that could strangle children until our government decided to stifle the market by introducing 'regulations'.

Why should I be arrested for driving at 120mph past a school as the kids are leaving if I haven't actually hurt anyone?

What ever happened to the good old days when anyone could just jump into a car and drive it around the roads without having to take a state-imposed 'test'?

So why shouldn't I just be allowed to buy a gun and keep it?

Anonymous said...

The linked article creates a completely false and utterly bizarre dichotomy. Nobody on the left actually thinks that it's an issue of a mob responding to stimuli rather than individual moral actors. The desire to ban guns comes from the left's belief that individual moral actors would be able to kill fewer people with knives or sticks than they can with guns. If you think that's wrong, then argue with that point, don't create your own fevered image of a political pathology to argue with instead.

MessageSpace Adverts