Good legislation is concise legislation

In 1657, Blaise Pascal famously wrote “Je n’ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n’ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte.” (“I have made this longer than usual because I have not had time to make it shorter.”)

Starting with our primary school language classes, we are taught that good writing is clear, concise writing.

So why do salaried politicians believe that they need to keep creating many new long, opaque laws, to prove they are doing their job?

Like good writing, good legal code is simple, clear, concise legal code.

The legislators are doing their job when the legal code in effect is the shortest possible which protects people’s life, limb, property and liberty.

The Matrix Reloaded

(photo from Matthew Hensman’s Facebook page)

Germany has ended its information sharing pact with Britain and the United States in the wake of Edward Snowden’s revelations of what goes on at the NSA.

Hurray! Says Tom Palmer, a well known libertarian. The Germans remember the Stasi. And they don’t want it back.

Or do they?

Word amongst those who grew up in East Germany is that before the fall of the Berlin wall, Mrs Merkel, who was then an East German, was an eager supporter of that country’s communist regime.

Ask yourself: which country and which secret service organization have the most to gain from Germany detaching itself from the American sphere of influence in this way?

Here’s a clue. It’s the same country that benefited the most from the former eager East German communist youth taking over the centre-right CDU and the German government.

And a crypto-socialist taking over the Conservative Party and the Government of the United Kingdom.

And a crypto-socialist clown taking over the centre-right party and the Presidency of France (well he’s now been ousted but only after having been replaced by an overt communist).

And a “former” Maoist taking over the Presidency of the European Commission and a former CND (a KGB-funded organization) treasurer taking over as EU’s High Representative.

It’s the same country which has the most to gain from having a socialist EUSSR satellite state on its doorstep, and all the political parties of all of the continent’s main countries (the UK, Germany, France) controlled by either overt or crypto-socialists.

It’s the same country which the most to gain from so-called “greens” pursuing a countryside and wildlife-destroying agenda of blighting the European landscape with bird-killing wind turbines, while also happening to push these same European countries into energy dependency on Russian oil.

One does not have to be noisy and throw one’s weight about to run the world.

Human Sacrifice 21st Century Style

Our ancestors were afraid of thunder, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes. They did not understand what causes them, so they came to what we today believe to be an erroneous conclusion that the Gods were angry with them. To appease the Gods, they reasoned, they had to engage in human sacrifice. The logic of this conclusion has been lost in the mists of time, or at least is not known to this author. By doing so, our ancestors not only had no effect on natural disasters, which were natural phenomena, they also severely negatively affected their own chances of survival (not to mention the chances of the person who was being sacrificed). Such behaviour was irrational, and could be said to be insane.

Yet today, we are afraid of our climate changing. We do not understand climate, yet we have come to believe that the change is being caused by us breathing and thus exhaling carbon dioxide (and engaging in certain other practices which emit carbon dioxide). To appease the climate, we have decided we must engage in sacrifice – we must curtail activities which emit carbon dioxide. Such curtailment undoubtedly leads to more poverty and consequently to more human deaths. Yet this behaviour has no effect on climate, which is a natural phenomenon.

I wonder if those who come after us will view our own human sacrifice in the name of lower carbon emissions as just as insane as we view prehistoric human sacrifice in the name of appeasing the gods.

The Matrix

The Bilderbergers. The Trilateral Commission. The Council on Foreign Relations. The Illuminati. The Freemasons. Common Purpose. The secret politbureau. The elite. You’ve heard of them. Some say they run the world. Others dismiss such claims as a conspiracy theory.

What is the truth?

In the olden days, power was simple. Someone was the strongest, he had the best weapon and he extorted money from his victims by threat and, if necessary, by the use of, force and violence. With time, the thug became more sophisticated and replaced robbery with “rule”, extortion with “taxation”, but still the source of his power remained his physical strength and his sword.

Even in those days, another source of power soon emerged. The priests. Although not physically strong, the High Priest would manipulate the King by creating an illusion that he had special powers over the supernatural world, through which he would instill fear in the King and exert power over him, and, indirectly, over his subjects.

Religion – certainly organized monotheistic religion – has always been about nothing other than power and politics. Religion is a game of power indistinguishable from politics.

Throughout the history of the Holy Roman Empire, the Holy Roman Emperor and the Pope held a balance of power in which the Emperor was the master of the classical power game of the sword, and the Pope the master of the power game of religion, collaborating and competing at the same time. Collaborating in the knowledge that by doing so, they both gained power at the expense of their subjects, competing over who would have more influence between the two.

In recent years, another source of power has emerged. Information. Collecting vast troves of information about people (overtly or covertly, legally or illegally), putting it together and using it in ways which are legal (e.g. by using knowledge about people to manipulate them psychologically by targeted messages through various PR and media outlets) or illegal (such as using the information for blackmail) – is the modern day paradigm shift in the game of power akin to the one religion, when it was first thought of, represented compared to the power of the sword. I know a mafia man who owns a large European software company which supplies entire IT infrastructures to banks and telecommunications companies. This company – on the pretext that this is necessary in order to provide technical support – has live access to customer data of all those organizations. Its owner makes good use of this information, both in his own dealings, and by trading it on the black market for other information and favours with other mafiosi. When in 2008, the BND, Germany’s secret service, paid off Heinrich Kieber to steal data belonging to customers of Liechtenstein’s LGT Bank, this data was also offered to other world governments. Some countries declined to have anything to do with the stolen inforamation. Other countries’ law enforcement agencies also bought it. But in some countries, the data was reputedly offered to the highest bidder and was sold to organized criminals in the black market. It has since allegedly been used to blackmail leading elected politicians. A number of countries where this has allegedly happend have since then, as a matter of fact, been taken over by organized crime.

Physical force is very visible. It is brutal, primitive. For the amount of energy expended, it is not very efficient. It is not deniable. And, particularly in the day where realms are great and have large populations and the opinion of the people matters, rule by force and violence makes one look bad and unpopular. Challenging established power through the means of force and violence is also very difficult, because it is very visible and can easily be stopped by the dominant player (provided he is not too stupid).

Religion is more subtle. Smarter. It represents a much better return on the amount of energy expended. Its use as a way to power is somewhat deniable. It does not make one look obviously bad. At least not to everyone. Indeed, to some, it can even make one look good. Yet religion is still visible. Many people will see through religious leaders and recognize their true motives and their desire for power. Religion can lead to religious wars. All of this is bad for the reputation of relgions, their practitioners and leaders.

The information power game, on the other hand, is genious. It can be almost competely invisible (spy it wherever you hear the words “big data”). Except when a scandal erupts – such as the phone hacking scandal in Britain which brought down the News of the World and the freedom of the press, and the exposure of NSA’s spying by Edward Snowden – no one (except possibly other spies, and even them with difficulty) needs even know you are doing it. It represents a tremendous return on the amount of energy expended. The amount of personal energy required is almost none – almost everything can be delegated to computers, which cost only money. Since the information can be monetized, in the long term, its cost is low or can even be negative. Engagement in this kind of power play is almost entirely deniable. Because it is completely invisible, it does not have any adverse effect on the actor’s reputation. And because it can be done in stealth mode, the dominant player (if there is one) can be challenged without getting on his radar.

You could say, in a sense, that Hitler, Stalin, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were first generation power brokers, while the Fabians, Gramsci and the European Union are third generation power brokers.

Who engages in this kind of stuff? All security agencies for sure. White collar criminals also are major players. Large corporates like Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo. Why do you think the NSA wants access to all the information Google owns? Anti-terrorism? No. Power. By getting automatic access to this information, the NSA makes sure it stays on top of Google in the information game and that Google does not become a threat to the U.S. government – or the spooks’ own grip over it.

Of course, the big data game is no more a dominant power meme over religion and physical force than religion or physical force is over the other. The world is engaged in a constant series of interlinked power struggles at all levels.

Is there a central secret politburo in charge of all this information, which calls all the shots in a worldwide co-ordinated fashion, which a secret elite knows about, but the rest of us do not? I used to think so. But the more I have thought about it, the more I have come to the eerie conclusion that the truth is subtly different.

With physical force, there is no central power, no one man or one country in charge of everything, whom everyone else blindly follows and obeys. The same is true with religion. The information power game is, I submit, no different. Yet, with military might, and with religious power, while there is constant struggle for control, there is also usually a dominant player – or a few oligopolistic dominant players – who effectively control everything that matters. I believe the same is true in the field of information power play.

There are large numbers of ever competing centres of power struggling for dominance — the largest ones probably include the mafia, secret service organizations, Moscow, the EU. Some wax, some wane. There are probably one or two dominant ones. In my opinion, nobody truly knows for sure who all the major players are. Those who play the game, probably have an idea that they themselves may be an important player (although they may not even be sure of that), and have a much better idea who the other key players are than the rest of us. The rest of us are almost completely oblivious and clueless – beyond a vague feeling that something like it may be going on – if that.

Let me give a few examples. Today:

(1) the EU Commission is headed by Manuel Barroso, who claims to be a “centre-right” politician. Yet, in his youth, he was a well known Maoist.
(2) the German Chancellor is Angela Merkel, who claims to be a “centre-right” politician, and heads a centre-right political party. Yet, in her youth, growing up in East Germany, she was a keen fan of the communist regime.
(3) the British Prime Minister is David Cameron, who claims to be a “centre-right” politician, and heads Britain’s traditionally right wing party. Yet, his policies are consistently seen as socialist, and he is widely perceived to be a socialist.
(4) until he was ousted, the French president was Nicolas Sarkozy, who claims to be a “centre-right” politician, and headed France’s centre-right party. Yet, his policies were highly socialist and some have accused him of being a mole who was placed into that party in order to destroy it from within.

When before in history have so many right wing political parties been led by people who were all suspected of being socialist moles, who were placed into those parties in order to destroy them from within? Rising in all the main European powers to power, all at the same time?

Let’s have some more.

Between 2006 and 2013, bans on smoking in all or essentially all indoor public places were introduced in: Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Bahrain, Bermuda, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Estonia, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Greece, Honduras, …, Russia, United Kingdom, and many other places (I’m sorry, there are too many and I gave up). There is no international treaty to ban smoking. There was never any discussion of such a treaty. If there was, it surely would have taken a lot longer than 7 years to agree its terms, and even longer to achieve such a worldwide co-ordinated implementation. Yet the outcome has arisen spontaneously, the world over. How can this be? Maybe it’s a joint initiative of an international alliance (such as the Liberal International or the Communist International) of political parties? But no single such alliance was in power in all those countries during that period. So this cannot be the explanation.

Are these coincidences? It seems unlikely.

Are they the result of secret plots orchistrated by the Bilderbergers? By Brussels? By the KGB?

I believe the answer is that there has been a plot, by the dominant player, or perhaps a series of (dependent or) independent plots by several major players in the information power game, which have substantially, not wholly, but to a frightening extent, contributed to this state of affairs. The smoking ban – which faced strong opposition among the electorate in many places where it was nevertheless introduced by the legislatures – may well have been a test case. “Are we really influencing policy?” “Let’s try to engineer something innocous that nobody’s going to care too much about, which cannot happen by random chance throughout the world, and see if we can do it, if it really happens.” Like a secret nuclear weapons test on some far away atoll in the Pacific, the tremors barely registered on the seismograph of anyone who was not looking for it.

Nevertheless, in my opinion, none of these things transpired solely as a result of action o the polygon of information power players. They resulted as an outcome of power struggles played on all the various political chessboards, some more familiar and less covert. Neverthelss, I believe the information polygon played a significant role.

Who are these influential information power brokers who can effect such outcomes? I do not know. I think that, by virtue of the intrinsically covert, secret and invisible nature of the game, perhaps nobody knows – paradoxically, perhaps not even the players themselves – other than by conducting experiments of just the “smoking ban” kind. If I had to take a bet, however, as to who the most dominant player is, and who is behind the usurpation of Europe’s right wing political spectrum by left wing moles, my money would be on some successor organization of the KGB.

Another interesting aspect is that, although those in charge of information warfare are ultimately people, the amount of information processed is so large that the vast majority of decisions are being made by computers and the artificial intelligence algorithms they run. In addition to intercepted e-mails, location data from mobile devices, voluntarily provided data, illegally obtained data about bank accounts, telephone accounts, etc. the data gathered also includes data from millions of CCTV cameras and will probably soon include much data from various instances of Google glass and other wearable devices. The setup is eerily reminiscent of The Matrix in which people are enslaved and which people do not want to leave not by Orwellian physical, “first generation” methods and reasons, by Huxleyan subtle, “third generation” methods and reasons. In other words, people voluntarily refuse to leave the matrix because of the intoxicating convenience of customized, targeted, delivered information, for example.

The Western World’s truth economy

Third world dictatorships and backwards banana republics engage in money printing, racism, kidnapping, torture and murder of their own citizens, taxing those that remain to the hilt, imprisoning them without trial, and shameless propaganda, abhorrent backwards practices we abolished in the civilized Western world a long time ago.

Instead, our governments embrace modern 21st century governance practices such as quantitative easing, affirmative action, extraordinary rendition, enhanced interrogation techniques, extrajudicial assassinations, budget reinforcement, protective custody and public diplomacy.

Something rotten in socialized medicine

Ask a European – even one broadly in favour of private enterprise – and he almost invariably will jump to the defence of government-provided healthcare, paid for by the taxpayer and “free” at the point of use. Even suggesting the abolition of these arrangements is taboo in polite society. No political party, even in times of austerity, such as the private sector is currently experiencing, dares propose it, lest it face the wrath of the electorate.

People like their sweeties, particularly when they are “free”.

A story of poor people unable to afford treatment where healthcare provision is entrusted to the free market sounds horrible and selfish, while a story of the society helping the needy sounds charitable and magnanimous. Pointing out that these stories are hogwash and pointing out the reality is hugely unpopular.

Yet what is the reality?

“Patient, 34, died from a brain tumour the size of a tennis ball after THREE doctors mistook symptoms for depression” reads the Daily Mail on 5 July 2013. “Girl, 14, diagnosed with dehydration after suffering severe headaches and poor vision died months later from brain tumour” reads the Daily Mail on 5 July 2013. “Pensioner, 79, died after waiting two hours for an ambulance to arrive from 83 miles away” reads the Daily Mail again on 6 July 2013.

Three stories of a patient dying in the United Kingdom due to being abandoned or mistreated by the National Health Service, in just one newspaper in just two days. Even the stauhcnest defenders of the NHS cannot deny the fact that such stories are an everyday occurrence in the United Kingdom.

Patients are dying not because their healthcare is entrusted to the free market and they cannot afford to pay for it. While in the 19th century, it may have been the case that private healthcare was out of reach of the poor, today, due to progress in technology and the consequent growth of productivity, we are all much more affluent and private healthcare is within reach even of the poorest members of our society. Even an enormously expensive hip replacement operation costs at most two or three thousand dollars, an amount which in an emergency is within reach of even a poor family in the developed world, while most treatments for most common ailments cost at most tens or hundreds of dollars.

No. Patients are dying because the service provided by the taxpayer-funded government-run service is letting them down. It is letting them down because it is dysfunctional and falling apart.

A lack of money is not the cause. The NHS has plenty of money. It has money for a Leeds NHS Trust to have paid for such an elective as a breast enlargement operation for a woman whose flat chest was “ruining her life”, while the same trust denied an essential operation to a toddler which would have enabled him to be able to walk (“Why did NHS pay for this woman's 36DD breasts but refuse to pay £24,000 for an operation so this boy can walk?”, Daily Mail, 4 July 2013). The toddler, thankfully, was ultimately saved, not by the government — which abandoned him totally — but by a private charitable donation campaign.

Rich men, easily able to afford private health care, as well as poor, are dying every day or suffering from long-term irreparable health damage due to healthcare rationing, incompetent decisions, or just pure negligence, of employees of the National Health Service, who are neither accountable nor subject to competition from a more competent service provider.

Some issues of socialized medicine are commonly known:

  • Decisions which may mean life or death for us or our loved ones are taken out of our hands and are being made by bureaucrats. Healthcare can be denied to us for cost (or other) considerations, resulting in our death, even when amounts involved are small and we could easily ourselves afford them. Invariably, the socialized medical professional will not even tell us such options are available, even if we are willing to pay for them ourselves.
  • Lack of competition due to a government monopoly means that quality of service declines, while the cost of service provision soars.
  • public sector organizations invariably are cacocracies — staff are generally employed on the basis of criteria other than merit, and there are no competitive forces at work to punish employers who do not employ on the basis of merit and put them out of business. The quality suffers.
  • due to competitive pressures, private sector organizations employ the staff needed to provide the best possible service at the best possible price. Public sector bodies tend to employ lots of expensive bureaucrats which permit the higher-up bureaucrats to build bigger and bigger fiefdoms and empires they command. And there is no pressure from competitors to weed out such inefficient organizations. Government-provided healthcare organizations degenerate into government departments, employing a lot of expensive managers and civil servants, and fewer healthcare providers.

Yet, in this article we wish to speak of another failing of socialized medicine, not usually mentioned. Where a service at the point of use does not cost the user anything, and the cost is borne by the taxpayer, the demand for service soars to infinity. Statistics show that a significant number of general practitioner visits in the United Kingdom are from hypochondriacs and lonely old people, coming in for a chat looking for a little company. You might think that this was a reasonable use of resources, since mental health is also important. It is unlikely that these people would go to the doctor if they had to pay for their visit; a typical visit to a private general practitioner costs in the region of $75 to $150 – a fee which is affordable, yet which stops people visiting without a good reason. Many others visit the taxpayer-funded service to treat trivial complaints.

What is the result of all this – apart for a huge bill to the taxpayer for no useful effect?

Medicine is not a science. We do not understand how a human body works exactly. A doctor has a general understanding of human anatomy, but depends critically on experience to diagnose his patient. When facing a patient exhibiting certain symptoms, the doctor will, consciously or subconsciously, make his decision in large degree on the basis of his experience – what was the most common health problem being suffered by a patient making this kind of complaint?

In a health service visited only by ill people – such as a private health clinic – it is unlikely that the patient facing the doctor is a hypochondriac. The doctor will gain experience through patients who are genuinely ill, and will likewise tend to diagnose a truly ill person correctly.

In a health service visited largely by hypochondriacs, lonely people and people with minor symptoms, the doctor will generally learn – as his experience teaches him – that the symptoms being experienced by his current patient are also minor. Such as the two patients who were mis-diagnosed with depression and dehydration (respectively) when they really had brain tumors and died of them shortly after.

One might think that these mis-diagnoses were made due to incompetence or negligence on the part of National Health Doctors, and that something can, and should, be done about it – by holding the doctors to account and re-training them, for example.

Yet, it is unlikely that these doctors were either negligent or incompetent or that retraining a few doctors will prevent such occurrences regularly happening in the future.

Such mis-diagnoses are an inherent “feature” of a health system which is “free” at the point of use, which is mis-used by hypochondriacs, the lonely and the slightly ill, where the majority of users complaining of the symptoms exhibited by two tumor patients do, in fact, suffer from trivial ailments such as depression, dehydration, etc.

The Right to Bear Arms?

The killing of 20 children and 6 adults at the Newtown Sandy Hook school has renewed calls to introduce tighter gun control in America, particularly from people in Europe. But is the banning of private ownership of (certain kinds) of weapons an appropriate reaction?

America has enshrined the private gun ownership in its constitution. Originally, America was meant not to have a (standing) army, only a defence force of armed volunteers — a well regulated militia — who had their own weapons to get on with their lives but be mobilized to defend the country if and when attacked. That way, they could defend the country but not wage aggressive wars. With time, this constitutional provision was ignored and the U.S. developed the biggest (standing) army in the world. With it, the reasons to keep the people armed were forgotten. The question is, what causes more innocent civilians to die — aggressive wars waged by the U.S. military or armed maverick madmen going on killing sprees? If you could abolish one or the other, which would you rather do? Abolishing both is not a practical option, as a country without an armed defence force to defend itself does not remain a sovereign country for very long.

Switzerland still has broadly the same system of defence the U.S. originally had, although the pure “armed militia of volunteers” model has recently started to change so that today, Switzerland has an army of about 4,000 professionals and 130,000 armed volunteers — a standing army of 4,000 and a well-regulated militia of 130,000, if you will. Every man in Switzerland is armed, but Switzerland has no gun violence problem and it wages no aggressive wars. “Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture – but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept,” says the BBC. Swiss homicide rate is 0.7/100,000 population per year, one of the very very lowest in the world. Perhaps the more interesting question is: why is gun ownership a problem in the U.S. but not in Switzerland?

The European model vs. the American model

Which model — the European one, where defence is by standing army and the state has a monopoly on guns – or the original American one, where defence is by an armed militia of volunteers — has a better track record in terms of gun deaths caused by madmen?

As it turns out, there is no contest. It is not even close.

In the European model — of standing armies and no volunteer armed militia — incidents of madmen-inflicted gun deaths occur far less frequently than in the original American model of volunteer armed militia and no standing army. But when they do, the consequences are far worse. When all the guns are in the hands of a ruling oligarchy and there is no-one armed to oppose it and madmen take over – as the regularly do — the result is millions upon millions of madmen-inflicted gun-related deaths. Hitler and Stalin alone (indeed Hitler OR Stalin alone) account for far — far far — more madmen-inflicted gun deaths than the total number of people killed by mad shooters in the entire history of the United States.

Over the long run, a standing army is by far the bigger threat. And Europe has a far worse long-term record of madmen-inflicted gun deaths than the USA.

It is no coincidence that Europe has, since 1776, had Maximilien de Robespierre, Napoléon Bonaparte, Józef ChƗopicki, Napoléon Bonaparte III, Tsar Nicholas II, Vladimir Lenin (4 million murdered), Benito Mussolini, Miguel Primo de Rivera, Aleksandar Tsankov, Joseph Stalin (43 million murdered), Ahmet Bej Zogu, José Mendes Cabeçadas, Gomes da Costa, António Óscar Carmona, Józef PiƗsudski, Anatanas Smetona, António de Oliveira Salazar, King Alexander I of Yugoslavia, Engelbert Dollfuss, Konstantin Päts, Adolf Hitler (21 million murdered), Kimon Georgiev, Tsar Boris III, Kurt Schuschnigg, Kārlis Ulmanis, Ioannis Metaxas, Generalissimus Francisco Franco, Jozef Tiso, Ion Antonescu, Philippe Pétain, Ante Pavelić, Vidkun Quisling, Ferenc Szálasi, Josip Broz-Tito, Enver Hoxha, Mátyás Rákosi, Nikita Khrushchev, Todor Zhivkov, Antonín Novotný, Walter Ulbricht, Leonid Brezhnev, Nicolae Ceaușescu, George Papadopoulos, Marcelo Caetano, Gustáv Husák, Erich Honecker, Phaedon Gizikis, Wojciech Jaruzelski, Yuri Andropov, Konstantin Chernenko, Slobodan Milošević and Alexander Lukashenko, to name just a few European dictators, many of them responsible for millions of deaths. It is likewise no coincidence that many European countries have been dictatorships for most of the 20th century — Portugal until 1974 (fascist dictatorship), Spain until 1982 (fascist dictatorship), Greece until 1974 (military dictatorship), East Germany, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Moldova, Ukraine until 1989-1991 (communist dictatorship), Belarus until the present day (communist dictatorship). The French fifth republic, which is its constitutional arrangement to its present day, came into being in a 1958 coup by General Charles de Gaulle. Arguably, none of European Union member states have been democracies since having joined the European Union — since the EU’s law-making body, the European Commission, is unelected. That would mean that most of the European Union member states have either never been democracies, or have only been democracies for 10–20 years of their entire history. Over the same historical period, the USA has remained a democracy — it has had no dictators, let alone ones who murdered millions of its own citizens.

It is precisely an armed people which has stopped a mad dictator taking over the U.S. and its army and committing the kinds of atrocities European dictators have committed. A Hitler coming to power in America would either be assassinated, or face an armed rebellion, by his own people. There are no such safeguards in Europe.

While America has had dozens of people murder dozens of their fellow citizens over the past 200 years, Europe has had dozens of people murder millions of their fellow citizens (but Europe, too, has had its share of Breiviks, IRAs, ETAs, Brigade Rosses, etc. despite gun control laws).

The only way to control gun violence is with a body empowered to protect people agains such armed violence. But such a body must itself be armed. And that always brings up the question — quis custodiet ipsos custodes? What if the protectors themselves misbehave and go on a shooting rampage? We must then have armed protectors from armed protectors. The pyramid of protectors must either have a narrow top — like in Europe — or a wide one — as in America. The question of who is to be trusted to be the ultimate protector against murder by armed psychopaths — the armed people or the head of state in charge of a standing army — is analogous to who should be trusted to decide who should govern the country — the people or the head of state.

You only have the rights you can enforce and defend. The law without am effective, impartial, honest, non-corrupt, judiciary, is a dead letter. So is democracy without an armed population.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 44 other followers