EXCLUSIVE: Guns and Roses
When one William Kostric walked into a protest outside a town hall meeting in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, at which the President of the United States was present, carrying a loaded gun—“Of course it was loaded,” he told Chris Matthews later, “what kind of fool would carry around an unloaded gun?”—he and the movement he purports to represent walked straight into a well-laid trap.
Let’s put this in context. For weeks, the mainstream media had been going on about the rising danger of “right-wing extremism,” and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a well-known smear outfit that specializes in trying to marginalize legitimate expressions of dissent from liberal orthodoxy, had issued a “report” on the alleged revival of the so-called militia movement. For weeks the liberal media—notably MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow—had been hammering away at the alleged threat posed to the president by an alleged upsurge in “racist” and extremist violence, pointing to the attack on the Holocaust Museum by a deranged “white nationalist,” and the killing of an abortion doctor by an equally deranged nutjob. The “radical right,” they screamed, is on the march, with the strong implication that these dangerous militants won’t be happy until Obama is six feet under.
Given these circumstances, one has to wonder about the motives for Kostric’s action. This, after all, was a town-hall meeting called to discuss healthcare, not gun control. It seems, at best, a non sequitur, and, at worst . . .
Well, then, what was his stated intent? What was he trying to accomplish? When pressed by Matthews on MSNBC, Kostric made vague statements about how a right is lost if it isn’t exercised regularly, presumably meaning the right to bear arms. He also tried to make the argument that, well, if everybody was armed, there would be a lot less crime. You know the drill. The idea that everyone is always walking around armed in a free society—like so many other notions that don’t seem particularly “libertarian” and yet are held by many self-proclaimed lovers of liberty—sounds more like a Robert Heinlein story than real life.
Yet Kostric never answered the question, which was and is: Why come armed to a political meeting, particularly one ostensibly called to discuss healthcare? The whole point of even attending such a gathering, or, indeed, any sort of rational discussion about anything, is that we leave our guns—embodying the possibility of coercion—outside the door. We forsake force, and rely solely on our persuasive powers to get our point across. Why it is necessary to point this out to self-avowed “libertarians,” whose entire political philosophy is derived from the non-aggression principle, is beyond me.
It is disingenuous, to say the very least, for Kostric to claim that he was dramatizing the importance of gun rights, because that wasn’t the subject at hand. No, his point had nothing to do with healthcare, or even defending the Second Amendment. So as to make his intent unmistakable, he carried a sign that day which proclaimed it to all and sundry: “IT IS TIME TO WATER THE TREE OF LIBERTY!”
This was widely interpreted as a not-so-subtle threat to the President, personally. And I fail to see how it could be understood in any other way. To carry that sign in one hand, and a gun in the other, is a declaration of war. A war, I hasten to add, that Kostric and his fellow revolutionaries cannot possibly hope to win.
Kostric is a member of the Free State Project (FSP), which was founded by Professor Jason Sorens and like-minded souls, as an alternative to the Libertarian Party (LP) and the longstanding educational efforts that have characterized the mainstream of libertarian activism to date. Impatient with the frustrations and setbacks that have characterized the history of the LP, and not content with educating the non-libertarian public, the FSP’ers have decided to “live liberty,” and take over their own state, choosing New Hampshire no doubt on account of its “Live Free or Die” spirit—a motto that Mr. Kostric seems to have interpreted quite literally.
Professor Sorens, I note, has yet to actually move to this budding libertopia: Perhaps he’s not quite ready to give up his post at Yale for the cause. Then again, very few real-world people, that is, people who are gainfully employed and have extensive roots—family, friends, a history—in a specific area can just get up and go. While the luftmenschen (“people of the air”)—as Murray Rothbard, the founder of the movement, characterized all too many of his comrades—go where the winds take them, and Kostric soon found himself in Keene, New Hampshire, epicenter of the libertopian colony.
The rapid influx of outsiders—some 500-plus, according to most accounts—has caused some friction, most of it caused by the tendency of some prominent FSP-ers to engage in “civil disobedience.” They refuse to pay traffic tickets, they openly smoke marijuana, they disrobe (whilst packing heat, of course!), and some are no doubt engaged in more substantially illegal activities that I don’t even want to know or speculate about. The most popular category on the freekeene.com discussion forum is labeled "Civil Disobedience, Noncooperation, and Jailed Activists”: It is filled with news of the latest charges and court dates, pleas to show up in court in support of the defendants, and yes, even videos of their ridiculous (and sometimes ominous) antics. Kostric’s stunt was their moment in the sun.
Typically, some in the libertarian movement hailed Kostric as a hero. While we’ve had more than our our share of crackpots and scamsters in the libertarian movement, never have we had a significant organized grouping that openly advocated violence, or even flirted with it—at least, not until now.
The irony of this supposedly “radical” tendency is that they don’t take their own rhetoric all that seriously. On the one hand, we are told that the State is evil, a vicious monster capable of the most heinous crimes imaginable—and yet the lightness with which they take this threat tells a different story. They don’t really believe the State is going to retaliate, at least not in a way that will cause them harm any more serious than spending the night in jail. They really believe they can stand up to the Leviathan, that they can “go Galt,” as they put it, and withdraw from “the system.”
The utopianism and revolutionism of the FSP-ers are inextricably intertwined: Both underscore the essential naivete of a strategy that underplays the real power and evil of the State apparatus they disdain. Such a mistake could be fatal to those who make it, and surely fatal to the libertarian movement if it should ever become widespread.
Such a movement is asking to be infiltrated with agents provocateurs—a practice that the U.S. government has repeatedly engaged in over the years—and set up for state repression. It was routine, during the 1960's, when the “New Left” was all the rage, that the police would send in infiltrators, who would then egg on the more hot-headed fringe into acts of violence. And surely the Black Panthers ought to serve as a negative example: Who can forget the day they showed up at the state courthouse in Sacramento, California, carrying automatic rifles and posing on the front steps to the delectation of the media and their radical chic groupies? A few years later, they were all either dead or behind bars.
It is telling that the following Jack London quote appears on Kostric’s myspace.com page:
I would rather be ashes than dust! I would rather that my spark should burn out in a brilliant blaze than it should be stifled by dry rot. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet. The proper function of man is to live, not to exist.
Kostric and his fellow “superb meteors” could care less that they are discrediting and marginalizing the cause of liberty, and actually endangering what remains of our Second Amendment rights. They are too mesmerized by the prospect of their own brilliant sparks falling to earth in a blaze of glory.
It his interview with Matthews, and his subsequent numerous media appearances, Kostric identified himself as a Ron Paul supporter, and the media glommed on to this immediately. Ron was interviewed on MSNBC’s “The Ed Show,” and was asked if it didn’t “defy common sense” for Kostric to show up armed at a venue with the President . Given this opportunity to distance himself and the wider libertarian movement from one of his wilder supporters, Paul punted:
Well, I think it raised a couple of points. One thing I think it really shows a remarkable restraint on the President and his Secret Service because they didn’t over-react. They recognized what the state law was and that this man didn’t break any laws and that he was just practicing a right that he has, so I think this is very good and Obama deserves credit for this.
But I also think what this demonstrates is that it’s the old conservative argument. It’s not the gun that’s the danger, it’s the person that’s dangerous. He’s a peaceful person, he obeyed the law. He was not a man of violence and it went quite well, so I think it was a remarkable demonstration when you compare it to what 19 individuals could do with razor blades versus one man with an armed pistol that happens to be a law-abiding citizen.
Later on, Paul says “I don’t even know the guy”—so how does he know Kostric is “a peaceful person”? In a comment posted on the Reason magazine website before his fifteen minutes of fame in Portsmouth, Kostric said that drug dealers who fire on cops are okay in his book:
If people can't wake up and see why it's immoral to trespass and destroy someone’s property, kidnap and lock them in a cage for growing a plant in their backyard then perhaps a body count is what's required for change.
However, a nice guy, and generous to a fault, kept making excuses for Kostric: “I think he was remarkable in proving his point that he was a peaceful man and he caused no trouble.”
Okay, so maybe this Kostric fellow is merely a lone nut, someone who just wants attention and is in no way associated with any organized group. I believe this is what Rep. Paul thought, but, unfortunately, Kostric does indeed represent a trend within the libertarian movement, one that shows every indication of getting out of hand. A few days later, a whole group of Kostric wannabes showed up at a town hall in Arizona where Obama appeared. What’s more, they explicitly identified themselves as Ron Paul supporters. (See the very end of this link.) With Paul appearing to endorse this sort of behavior—or, at least, not oppose it—he is encouraging more of the same. And the dangers of that are many, and ominous:
1) It sets up the libertarian movement for government surveillance and infiltration. Under the PATRIOT Act, the government has the “right” to spy on anyone suspected of planning illegal acts, and any act of civil disobedience can be construed as “terrorism.”
2) It marginalizes the libertarian movement, and gives the professional “extremist”-hunters as well as the Obama-ite left a reason to tie a seemingly violent “fringe” with individuals and groups working to preserve what remains of our economic and civil liberties.
3) It is bound to end in a violent incident: Indeed, there have already been confrontations between the “tea-baggers” and union thugs at those town-hall meetings. It is only a matter of time before a gun goes off, either by accident or by intention.
4) By allowing the “mainstream” media to tie Kostric and his supporters to Ron Paul, the Ron Paul campaign apparatus and the Congressman himself are endangering the passage of his important “Audit the Fed” bill, which has amassed so much support and—at this point—seems likely to pass in some form.
I want to emphasize the importance of the first point: During the 1960's, when the government was infiltrating leftist organizations, it was relatively easy to spot a “pig,” as police agents were then called. He (or she) was always the one calling for outrageous acts of violence and maintaining a more-radical-then-thou posture.
Of course, most of the people who are being misled into believing they can “resist the State” aren’t police agents. They are perfectly sincere idealists who simply have no strategic sense, and certainly no common sense. They are perfectly right to denounce the government as a gang of thugs interested only in looting the productive while paying off their friends and supporters, akin to the Mafia. The only problem is that they don’t follow through on this vital insight, and act accordingly. You don’t get in the Mafia’s face, and dare them to come after you—unless, of course, you want to be wearing concrete shoes lying at the bottom of the river.
While opposing their means, libertarians should certainly sympathize with the ends proclaimed by these radical protesters. Yet even as we defend them against the State, and call for their release if and when they are imprisoned, we have a responsibility to separate ourselves from their adventuristic and even self-destructive tactics, which are a danger to the entire movement, and, indeed, to everyone who loves liberty. Leaders like Ron Paul, instead of tolerating this kind of “activism,” have a responsibility to point out that individual acts of civil disobedience or even violence, no matter how heroic and heartfelt, cannot succeed in bringing down the federal State: such a course can only bring down the heat and set back the movement for liberty.
Entries(RSS)
Kirt,
It did indeed happen. I saw the man on Cavuto a few days ago.
This is a repsonse to "terrymac" in particular.
You have no visceral response to lawmen openly carrying firearms? Objects designed solely to end human life? Well, that, and giving one the ability to threaten the ending of someone's existence. Personally, I don't care for it, and the idea that one could bring a life-ending device into proximity of the President of the United States of America is beyond question. I never cared for Mr George W Bush, but I would never in a million years even begin to dream of attending a speech of his, openly or secretly carrying a device with the capability of ending his life on merely my personal whim.
One should not fear for ones life at events blanketed by the Secret Service. And if you do? You need to either invest in heavy duty locks, or heavy duty self-analysis.
Personally, I'd love to have a right to exist without the fear of the stranger next to me in line packing equipment designed to end human life in the cheapest and most efficient way possible. Less than one dollar a hole through vital organs? Cheap at twice the price!
#50 - OK, so what was his name and when and where did it happen? That's basic information in a news story. Also, given the allegation in #48 that "the place was surrounded by ccc folks" and that camera phones are close to ubiquitous these days, is there any video of the incident?
Follow up - I googled the Cavuto interview (cavuto + finger) and watched the interview with the bite victim William Rice. By his own testimony, he threw not just the first punch, but the first two punches in response to the other guy calling him an idiot and getting close to him. On the second punch, his fist ended up in the guy's mouth and at that point the guy bit off his little finger. (I'd probably do the same thing just by reflex if someone hit me in the mouth.) The biter did not eat the finger, but Rice took it with him to the hospital. The doctors did not attempt to re-attach it because of the bacteria present in human bites. I'd say the moral of this story is the danger of pre-emptively starting a fight. It's also one more reason for me to stay away from these town hall meetings. If I want to engage in or be the victim of hooliganism, I can always go to a soccer game.
"have a responsibility to point out that individual acts of civil disobedience or even violence, no matter how heroic and heartfelt, cannot succeed in bringing down the federal State: such a course can only bring down the heat and set back the movement for liberty."
The author is obviously unfamiliar with our own history in respect to the navigation acts, stamp act, whiskey excise, prohibition, women's suffrage , and civil rights.
Why Justin, didn't you call-out all the government agents present that also were carrying firearms? Your rhetoric will only drive a wedge between those standing up for their rights - those living morally and advocating that others do as well - and those individuals that actions such as William's have the potential to reach.
Change happens one mind at a time.
William and the principled folks active with the FSP are not armchair philosophers (though many are more knowledgeable than many policy wonks) but engage in actions that cause others to think. William recognized the opportunity that the town hall meeting presented - he was acting morally and not breaking any man-made legislation and he undoubtedly caused thousands who learned of his actions to question the double standard that exists.
You claim that members of Black Panthers in the 1960s were "all either dead or behind bars" but failed to mention those that were effectively bribed off by the establishment by being brought into politics. This is similar to what happens to third parties - if they gain any traction and the system is threatened their ideas are gleaned by the Reps/Dems.
And if moral actions result in others using force to kill/incarcerate someone that only underscores the point - that control is wrong. If we today aren't willing to stand for what's right what future do we leave those that come after us?
For much too long the American firearms owning citizen has kept them locked up in the safe, in the closet, on the wall, or concealed from view if they are permitted or dare to carry them in public.
"While opposing their means, libertarians should certainly sympathize with the ends proclaimed by these radical protesters. "
Why should libertarians oppose the means of exercising ones rights in a manner permitted by law? What is so radical about wearing ones firearm on the outside of the belt instead of the inside?
My major problem with Kostric was the sign he picked. I think he really should've been a bit more careful there, and it's because of that that his credibility is in the toilet. While I don't think he should be /arrested/, I think he isn't doing Libertarians a favor by muddying the waters and being far more controversial than he needed to. But I'm equally sick of people calling out Libertarians as crazies because of it, people should try standing on their beliefs instead of their emotions for once.
"What is so radical about wearing ones firearm on the outside of the belt instead of the inside?"
The man showed up to a “town hall” meeting where the President was in attendance, armed, with a sign calling for the President’s blood. That can *only* discredit whatever movement he purports to represent. I’m sorry, but that is the truth and there is no way around it. Any suggestion otherwise is useless sophistry.
While I support the right of an individual to keep and bear arms, it occurs to me that rhetorical stances such as Mr. Kostric's only invite more violence.
Daniel,
It's nice that you brought up Switzerland where self-defense laws are more restrictive than New Hampshire. It's also no surprise that people are less free in Switzerland.
I was trying to estimate how far I would get walking down my street on Chicago's West Side strapped like Kostric before I'd be lit up either by cops gone wild or outraged homeboys when I realized I could never do what he did, even if I could be sure I'd survive, because I'd never want to see the look of terror in the eyes of the women and children in my path.
The sight of middle class folks in comparatively crime-free settings like New Hampshire walking around equipped as for the streets of Mogadishu might be laughable, but not while people facing real danger in high crime areas face high barriers to gun ownership. And here, people who do have guns put them to practical use, either in the commission of crime, or for the thwarting of crime. In both uses, the need is for concealment of the weapon.
Apropos the Machiavelli discussion on another Chronicles article, our gun rights were taken away from us gradually, in tandem with the general decline in virtue of the American people. While the idea of reviving the popular militia as a way of placing guns in the hands of average Americans, thereby restoring those rights, has merit, one should bear in mind Machiavelli's warning that when a people has become corrupt, it is exceedingly difficult if not impossible for them to relearn how to use their liberty once they lose it. If Chicago suddenly changed its gun laws to be the same as New Hampshire's, it might not become Mogadishu overnight, but it would surely head in that direction for awhile before the pendulum swings back - if it swings back.
peter eyre. great question/reply to justin. "Why?" well, i think the title "guns and roses" would then have to be "guns and guns".
btw, awesome article justin. you express so well what i could never write.
I should have added, the need for concealment of weapons in this context obviously lasts only until the moment they are actually put into play for the commission/prevention of crime.
To Robert ll @8: Great answer from the Okie point of view! I passed through OK City and Tulsa on my way home from Nam forty years ago this past July, and I've never forgotten the good feeling I got from those people, in contrast to the wretched atmosphere most every place else.
@61 Kevin who said,
"It’s nice that you brought up Switzerland where self-defense laws are more restrictive than New Hampshire. It’s also no surprise that people are less free in Switzerland."
People are less free?! One does not have to worry about blowing away an armed intruder in Switzerland because there generally aren't any. One does not have to worry about being drafted and sent to some desert somewhere because there is no official standing army and the Swiss do not get involved in other peoples affairs. One does not have to worry about their guns being taken away from them because the Swiss government puts guns into their hands. Canton (state) rights supercede federal government regulations virtually every time in little ol' Switzerland.
Ironically, the Swiss constitution was modelled after the US one! What happened? My friend in Switzerland makes three times what I make and pays 17% income tax total (much less than me), with no capital gains. Interestingly, he doesn't even have to report his capital gains to the government and his bank does not have to divulge every transaction exceeding $10,000 to the government because it is none of their business. I do believe that they are the only country that still has enough gold in their vaults to back up every bill they have in circulation. Imagine that!
Switzerland is a small, land-locked country surrounded by the pressure of the big-government socialist EU. If you ask me, they are doing just fine and are not worried about their rights being stripped. People are showing up to town hall meetings with the president open-carrying because they are desperately trying to hold onto their eroding rights, and THEY are scared, not the Swiss. Gun sales went through the roof after Obama was elected. That has to tell you something about the mindset of people and their beliefs in how "free" they are.
You are right, those opressed Swiss folk have it pretty bad.
Sorry I meant "Keith"
“It’s nice that you brought up Switzerland where self-defense laws are more restrictive than New Hampshire. It’s also no surprise that people are less free in Switzerland.”
No people are less free than we Americans - that is simply a fact. We confine a higher percentage of our citizens in cages than any other country in the world, ergo a lower percentage of our citizens are "free" than any other country in the world.
Boy is this going to sound arrogant. But most of the time when I read stuff online I am reminded of this quote from an article in The Atlantic on caring for your introvert
Are introverts arrogant? Hardly. I suppose this common misconception has to do with our being more intelligent, more reflective, more independent, more level-headed, more refined, and more sensitive than extroverts. Also, it is probably due to our lack of small talk, a lack that extroverts often mistake for disdain. We tend to think before talking, whereas extroverts tend to think by talking, which is why their meetings never last less than six hours. "Introverts," writes a perceptive fellow named Thomas P. Crouser, in an online review of a recent book called Why Should Extroverts Make All the Money? (I'm not making that up, either), "are driven to distraction by the semi-internal dialogue extroverts tend to conduct. Introverts don't outwardly complain, instead roll their eyes and silently curse the darkness." Just so.
Now if you replace talking with writing on the web the meaning remains unchanged. It is like a person sits down at the keyboard and whatever quasi random neural firings happen between their ears get passed almost directly and immediately to the fingers with little filtering or reflection taking place. Consider this quote from Mr. Jacobi: "If Chicago suddenly changed its gun laws to be the same as New Hampshire’s, it might not become Mogadishu overnight, but it would surely head in that direction for awhile before the pendulum swings back – if it swings back."
Now I suppose that this is possible, but it seems to assume that anyone thoughtful enough to think of changing the laws is otherwise dumber than a rock. For one thing one can suppose that while the Chicago Police force has its fair share of corrupt dirty cops, it is likely that few if any of them are on the payroll of various gangs. For another, along with laws allowing open and concealed carry, one could also have a law making it a not a crime for a person with no felony conviction to kill and armed felon or armed ex felon, if the felony was committed within the past 1, 3, 4? whatever years.
In addition, free training could be offered to all women. If this does not work, some other methods probably would. One could always post the national guard for six months or a year. Seriously people. Think before you post. At least, consider the possibility that your ideas may not be all that great.
Justin - I agree with your main points here: that these militant displays do not help the libertarian cause, particularly when Ron Paul is invoked. Stylistically, you're right on, and I would prefer to see my fellow libertarian, pro-Second Amendment brethren not flash their guns at public meetings such as this. And, make no mistake, I'm as pro-Amendment Two as anyone... but these displays only serve to marginalize the libertarian movement, the gun rights movement, and Ron Paul personally.
Two things, though:
1. it's very difficult to get a group of non-conformist, independent-minded libertarians to conform to my and your view of what needs to happen stylistically. We're probably spinning our wheels here.
2. I think you're being a bit too hard on the Free State Project. While I'm not a resident of NH, I think it's a great idea to attempt to put *some* libertarian-minded people in government from *one* state rather than have weak support for libertarians in every state and get almost *no one* elected from *any* state. I'm sick of saying we only have one good person in Congress -- I want more Ron Pauls in there, and the FSP is one strategy to accomplish that.
Keep up the great work on antiwar!
@68 Mr Toddard
If only you could meet some of those "caged citizens." They are in fact animals who deservedly got where they are by their severe anti-social behavior. The police are too dim-witted to frame one per cent of them let alone half of them. Hard-core criminals are not railroaded into the slammer by an abusive justice system. If they were, then prisoners'd be used as factory workers to be exploited by greedy capitalists. The best of them, usually small time drug types, get to pick up trash on the highways to have any semblence of work-related dignity. The rest just watch TV and lift weights.
@68 and 69,
Feral men and women are the greatest portion of our prison population today. Human beings who have grown up in the famous "state of nature" without faith, without a patrimony to defend, without a steady struggle for truth or a culture that could assist them in cultivating their most human qualities. As a young and recently Blessed Italian describes this life: "it is not living, but existing.” They exist where they can exist best in a community --- under 24 hour surveliance. See also "Feral Hogs on the rise in Arkansas" for more on the state of nature our youth are tending towards with each passing school day.
re #15:
"I think perhaps more people should be aware, and the author of this post, especially, that one side has NO intentions of leaving their guns out of the debate. And its not the libertarians."
I think you're exactly right, Ogre. That is a valid point. The basic disagreement I have with Mr. Kostric's demonstration is that it was, at best, futile, and very likely to end in his imprisonment or murder by federal LEAs at some future date.
I prefer concealed carry, because keeping and bearing arms for the defense of my life, family and property doesn't require that I make a show of it. I exercise the right without taunting the political class and without making a target of myself.
I find it pointless to attend such a political show as a "townhall meeting" convened for a federal officer such as the president. That being the case, I would have no occasion for carrying a sign expressing a willingness to do violence to a tyrant.
re #28:
"Lily-livered searching for some middle ground, whether it is in the context of a “bipartisan healthcare bill” or a form of watered-down political protest which panders to the only-moderately-liberals,"
If you had seen Mr. Raimondo's posting on Free Republic in the early days of the W administration, you probably wouldn't misinterpret his post here in such a way. He was under heavy attack daily by Bush's neocon and liberal supporters, who were in the process of taking over that forum, and never once exhibited any 'Lily-livered searching for some middle ground".
Mr. Raimondo is no champion of any sort of appeasement. He's simply a very astute tactician, as a result of many years on the front lines. He's no lily-liver, believe me. I have seen him go, as we say where I come from.
re #42:
"if Dr. Paul’s clear, decades-long support of the second amendment was not enough to garner the support of the NRA, then perhaps other things were at work,"
Yes, such as the fact that the NRA is the largest, best funded gun control lobby in existence. The NRA has written, lobbied for, and/or endorsed every single piece of federal gun control legislation ever passed, as far back as 1934.
The NRA is a GOP fundraising organization as well, spending their gullible members' donations on getting out the vote for such gungrabbers as Arlen Spector. That's the main principle "at work" behind the NRA's failure to support Dr. Paul.
"If only you could meet some of those “caged citizens.” They are in fact animals who deservedly got where they are by their severe anti-social behavior."
Well, obviously you don't know that. It's not possible for you to know that everyone incarcerated in this country is an "animal who deservedly got where they are". We have the harshest criminal-justice system in the world, populated to a significant degree by people guilty of victimless crimes. Even if we allow that they deserve punishment for violating the law that does not follow that they are the feral subhumans of your caricature. Regardless, even if your ridiculously broad characterization were entirely true then that would mean Americans are both the least free and the most animalistic, criminally-inclined people in the world. Either way, not exactly a source for pride, is it?
Toddard@76
I did not mean feral in a subhuman sense. I meant feral as in a lack of domestication or undeveloped human qaulities such as the ability to move ones self toward or away from perceived goods and desires. The ability to enjoy or love something or somebody other than one's self. A person without arms or legs is still a person just as an impulsive criminal is a person, the former may have been a track star or accomplished musician before lending his service in Afghanistan or Iraq, while the latter may never have thought of service at all. The one has developed and experienced unique human qaulities while the "wretch concentered all in self, living shall forfeit fair renown, and doubley dying shall go down to the vile dust from whence he sprung,unwept,unhonored and unsung." That is what I meant by feral--- something less than a fully developed human but still human. Pax
"I did not mean feral in a subhuman sense."
I'm sorry, Robert - I conflated your post and hers in error. My apologies.
Just a cautionary note when you start worrying about all those in prison for victimless crimes. Often the drug possession is the only charge that will stick when a miscreant is apprehended. I can tell you from experience I am glad when a certain neighbor spends time in jail for drug possession. When he's out he supports himself by stealing from the neighborhood (and elsewhere) but he has only been convicted of that once. I doubt that there are two many upstanding responsible working citizens in jail for smoking a little pot.
"Often the drug possession is the only charge that will stick when a miscreant is apprehended"
Sure. And others are serving brutally long sentences entirely disproportionate to their crimes. Either way Americans are both the least free and the most criminally-inclined people in the world.
I was away when our friend Justin's piece was posted. It is the first of what will obviously be a provocative series. When I first met Justin, it was in the company of our late friend Murray Rothbard, who had a high regard for him, and it was Murray who warned me, over and over, against the "grifters, whackos, and losers" that infested libertarianism, a group that is comparable in every way to the brownshirts who often make it unpleasant to be associated with the American Right and impossible to make a bold stand that is not immediately co-opted by defenders either of terrorism or child molestation. We founded the John Randolph Club as a place where outspoken but sane people from the different strands of the old right could meet and debate. Perhaps it is time to make another effort? In any event, I hope all faithful Chronicles readers will give Justin a warm welcome and a rousing cheer--even if sometimes it has to be a Bronx cheer. This must be the only magazine and website that can welcome Pat Buchanan, Craig Roberts, Clyde Wilson, Justin Raimondo, and Alex Cocburn.
Welcome back, Dr. Fleming. When can we expect you to post your essay entitled ‘Blogolalia.’
[Please forgive me for getting off the point. However, while I'm at it (in for a penny, in for a pound, so to speak) when can we expect an issue of Chronicles on the theme of "National Interest"?]
@69 Doug Nusbaum
Since you've earned the dubious distinction of being the first ever to call me an extrovert in my six decades on this earth, perhaps you need to take some of your own advice and think a little more before you let fly with labels based on reading one post. It was especially unamusing to ponder how all that money I'm accused of taking away from those poor introverts has escaped my notice.
But I think you have hit upon a capital idea with that law to legalize the killing of felons! I'll just get me a list of the local varmints and a'huntin' I will go, with some of those freshly trained womenfolk by my side!