Main menu

Outgunning the Nasties

(originally launched into cyberspace on 10/07/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

Why do we need "government"? Most people respond with something
like, "To protect us from bad people." To that end, we need
(supposedly) to have "authorities" who have MORE power than the
rest of us. In other words, we want the good guys to outgun the bad
guys. (I know I want that, but I don't see "government" as the way
to make it happen.)

Here's the authoritarian plan in a nutshell: we get a bunch of good
guys together, and put LOTS of power in their hands (more power
than the rest of us have), so they can protect us. Trouble is,
those who become police officers are only PEOPLE, some of whom are
nasty bullies, and some of whom--at least to begin with--are "good
guys." What happens when those people with extra powers turn out to
BE the bad guys we need protecting from? Well, here's one thing
that can happen:
(In short, a cop went on a killing spree.)

Now, in that case, wouldn't it have been convenient if the cop
WASN'T more heavily armed than his victims? Wouldn't it have been
better if some average Joe had been carrying a gun, and stopped the

(One thing about the story I found ironic is that it said the guy
killed several people "before authorities fatally shot him." Didn't
they mean "before OTHER authorities" shot him? The murderer was,
after all, a representative of "authority." He is one of the
protectors that, in theory, has the job of PROTECTING us from the
nasties of the world.)

People who are determined to make the myth of "government" work
keep trying to come up with new ways to make "authority" be the
good guys. We have elections, and constitutions, and courts, and
appeals, and so on. But no matter what we do, cops are still only
PEOPLE. Add to that the fact that their supposed "authority" grants
them societal PERMISSION to do things the rest of us aren't allowed
to do, and it's no wonder "government" ends up being a perpetrator
more often than a protector. (Compare, for example, the amount of
theft COMMITTED by "law enforcement" under the guise of "taxation,"
to the amount of theft PREVENTED by it. It's not even close.)

Good people don't delight in the idea of killing anyone, even when
it's necessary. Nonetheless, here's the unfortunate truth of the
matter: if you're a good person, and you want to do something to
make the good guys outgun the bad guys, by far the best thing you
could possibly do is GET A GUN and LEARN HOW TO USE IT. Lots of
people don't want to do that. They don't want the responsibility
and they don't want the trouble--they want it to be someone ELSE'S
job to use necessary violence. Meanwhile, the street criminals are
EAGER to be armed, as are control freaks who gravitate towards
positions of "authority."

Suppose one day you're unfortunate enough to actually be there when
a situation like the one described above happens. Which of the
following would be better?: 1) To watch others die--and maybe die
yourself--while thinking "I hope somebody stops him"; or 2) to BE
one of the "good guys" who is able and willing to stop the "bad
guys"? If you want the good guys to outgun the bad guys, stop
voting and whining for "legislation," and start visiting a shooting


Larken Rose