Editor’s note: Bill is presently incapacitated due to an extruded disc in his back and unable to produce essays which meet with his own satisfaction. On this account, we’d like to reiterate that ZeroGov is always in search of new essays by our readers. You can email your submissions to me at kaiserleib@gmail.com. We may edit them for mechanics, but never for content. -KL

Modern voters from both parties will often have their personal reasons for either not supporting or supporting taxation. Some reason they are unconstitutional and others that we need more of them.

Taxes are constitutional, Article I section 8 line 1 states clearly, “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.” The case has been made that taxes are not comparable among everyone. Libertarians love to push the infamous flat tax system, and I have personally promoted that way in the past. However, the constitution says quite clearly, “all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States” not that all taxes shall be uniform. It is necessary to remember that the famous Federalist Anglophile Alexander Hamilton and his retinue of anglophile rich slave owning “founders” wrote the Constitution. They wanted to ensure that they would be able to control who paid what and how much. So we can see that the first argument, “taxes are unconstitutional” is, in fact, a spurious argument. And please remember, as long as congress passes a bill it is “constitutional” as per Article I Section 8 (last line) “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

What about the second argument, “we need more taxes to provide for the people?” Unfortunately, this argument is essentially a silly one and is unsustainable regardless how you report it. Where do tax dollars come from, and if you reinsert this money after taking some away what is the natural side effect of this process? In the United States and England, you have a high percentage of employed individuals working for the state, being paid with tax dollars, which they then turn around and pay back into the system through their taxes. How is this beneficial to a strong economy? I have decided to introduce a excellent model that most of us will know.

When we’re young we leave our teeth for the tooth fairy right? Now in a perfect world the tooth fairy leaves a bit of money and everyone is happy; however, in a socialist society the tooth fairy will actually just leave you the neighbor kid’s money. After all, we must share and share alike right? However, not only are you going to get the neighbors money, but in transit I am going to keep 75% of it. So you’re only going to get 25% of that money, and you should be grateful, after all I am providing something for others by doing it this way.

Go ahead give your child their allowance, or promise them payment for services rendered. Now when you are giving it to them, make a show of taking 75% of what you were going to give them. Want to calculate their reaction, I guess they don’t see it as a benefit for the neighbor kids. Taxation is stealing it is immoral and unethical.

So as, you religiously file your taxes this year, just think, if you had been able to keep that 75% of your paycheck that comes out in payroll, personal income, food, gas, property, Medicare, retirement taxes. If you had been able to keep that money, would you have been able to pay your medical bills, pay for college versus getting loans, or even more payments to the house? How much would you have saved last year alone? How much could you have donated last year if you had been able to keep 75% more of your hard earned income? Would you have been able to fix the pothole in front of your street, the one the government was supposed to do with your tax dollars?

So regardless what piece of paper you believe in, or what ideological position you take, the very idea of taxes is wrong. Taxation is theft, and it supports the state which exists to bring war to others and manage your decisions making you the tax slave you were born to be. Remember to ask the next time you file your tax return, why am I doing this again?

Michael Collins

Ten years from now, you will not recognize a map of North America because of the significant changes in nation-state destruction and creation that will occur after the inevitable economic collapse of the Western world.  Some of those change agents who will usher in the new geography will resort to fourth generation warfare and guerrilla warfare to carve the continent up.  This Other New World Order has some historical analogs that will make the potential spectator or participant in these world shaping events better informed to deal with the undiscovered country ahead.  The Other New World Order shapes change in the opposite direction of the apocryphal New World Order:  where there is one nation, it will create dozens or hundreds. Consolidation and centralization will be the new enemy of the Other New World Order.  In the interest of lending historical perspective to how this will take place, we will examine some worthies through history whose actions and imperatives built civilization locally instead of globally.

Michael Collins (Irish: Míċeál Ó Coileáin; 16 October 1890 – 22 August 1922), the Irish guerilla leader who was largely responsible for removing the English from the Irish homeland after an 800 year struggle was an extraordinary man.  He was a young man whose talent quickly propelled him to the top of the ranks in the Irish resistance after the 1916 Easter Rising that precipitated the eventual divorce of the United Kingdom from the island of Eire in 1922. A civil war started in Ireland shortly after the divorce from the UK and Collins would live a mere four months in a relatively free Ireland before he was murdered by the Anti-Treaty IRA.

After the two Viking ages in Ireland, the Norman invasion established the first British presence in 1169 and the struggle against the English crown began in earnest.  Seven and a half centuries would pass before the Irish republic finally calved off the British Empire in 1922.  There is speculation on Plan Green (Germany) and Plan Kathleen [an invasion of Northern Ireland] (IRA) during WWII on the possibility of yet another English invasion to secure the Irish against German invasion but it is merely an historical interlude in the larger scheme of things.  The British, of course, still held the Northern Ireland province as a fiefdom in the greater kingdom.

Michael Collins was what one could suppose is any government most dangerous adversary.  He was a practical visionary.  Not only did he envision a free Ireland, he had a concrete plan to get there.  Like Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry before him and Giap after him, he blended a unique talent for the political chess game and calculus of violence that would enable the resisters to overwhelm the will and outmatch the ferocity of the British occupiers.  While a contemporary of T. E. Lawrence, they did not know each other but crafted an eerily similar game-plan to defeat their foes.  Collins knew that the “golden hour” for independence and all the planets aligning for the political tectonic shift were on the horizon and he simply had to arrange the events and orchestrate the players.  Those six years between 1916 and 1922 would prove to be the precise moment when the Irish could loose the English fetters that had harnessed their nation for nearly 800 years.

Who was Michael Collins?

Collins worked as a clerk in London from 1906 until he returned to Ireland in 1916. He fought in the Easter Rising, was arrested and held in detention at Frongoch, Merioneth, but was released in December 1916. In December 1918 he was one of 27 out of 73 elected Sinn Féin members (most of whom were in jail) present when Dáil ireann (Irish Assembly) convened in Dublin and declared for the republic. Their elected president, Eamon de Valera, and vice president, Arthur Griffith, were both in prison. Hence, much responsibility fell on Collins, who became first the Dáil’s minister of home affairs and, after arranging for de Valera’s escape from Lincoln jail (February 1919), minister of finance. It was as director of intelligence of the Irish Republican Army (IRA), however, that he became famous. As chief planner and coordinator of the revolutionary movement, Collins organized numerous attacks on police and the assassination in November 1920 of many of Britain’s leading intelligence agents in Ireland. He headed the list of men wanted by the British, who placed a price of 10,000 on his head.

After the truce of July 1921, Griffith and Collins were sent to London by de Valera as the principal negotiators for peace (October–December 1921). The treaty of Dec. 6, 1921, was signed by Collins in the belief that it was the best that could be obtained for Ireland at the time and in the full awareness that he might be signing his own death warrant. It gave Ireland dominion status, but its provision for an oath of allegiance to the British crown was unacceptable to de Valera and other republican leaders. Collins’s persuasiveness helped win acceptance for the treaty by a small majority in the Dáil, and a provisional government was formed under his chairmanship, but effective administration was obstructed by the mutinous activities of the anti-treaty republicans. Collins refrained from taking action against his former comrades until IRA insurgents seized the Four Courts in Dublin and civil war became inevitable. William Thomas Cosgrave replaced Collins as chairman when the latter assumed command of the army in mid-July 1922 in order to crush the insurgency. About five weeks later, while on a tour of military inspection, Collins was shot to death by anti-treaty IRA.

Collins was the right man at the right time in the right historical place.  Absent his strategic brilliance, tenacity and charisma, Irish independence may not have happened.  In the larger schema of history, this became yet another chapter in the long succession of nation creation and destruction that has marched through Western history from it Hellenic roots in ancient Greece.  Not only was Collins seceding from a larger tax jurisdiction but he was creating a wholly independent tax jurisdiction that would go on to become an odd amalgam of capitalism and socialism that would completely collapse economically at the beginning of the 21^st century.

Key aspects of his campaign were the careful grooming of auxiliary organizations in the mass base of the greater population, a consistent and wholesale campaign to legitimize Irish independence in the minds of the Irish and his charismatic leadership.

He also employed a savage violence that led to the events of 21 November, 1920 when he effectively killed and destroyed the essential elements and personnel of the UK intelligence organs in Ireland proper. T. Ryle Dwyer, author of The Squad and the Intelligence Operations of Michael Collins quotes Collins:

“My one intention was the destruction of the undesirables who continued to make miserable the lives of ordinary decent citizens. I have proof enough to assure myself of the atrocities which this gang of spies and informers have committed. If I had a second motive it was no more than a feeling such as I would have for a dangerous reptile. By their destruction the very air is made sweeter. For myself, my conscience is clear. There is no crime in detecting in wartime the spy and the informer. They have destroyed without trial. I have paid them back in their own coin.”

Most historians agree this crippled British intelligence operations (Cairo Gang) from this point onward and made the withdrawal of British interests inevitable.  Absent the sophisticated network of spies and informants, the war would be fought blind.  More atrocities in response to this were visited on the Irish by constabulary and military forces and this merely stiffened the spine of the major and minor elements of the Irish resistance.  That same day, British forces fired on spectators at an Irish football match which left seven dead and dozens wounded.

David Leeson in “Death in the Afternoon: The Croke Park Massacre, 21 November 1920” describes part of the aftermath.

“Two military courts of inquiry into the massacre were held, and one found that “the fire of the RIC was carried out without orders and exceeded the demands of the situation.” Major-General Boyd, the officer commanding Dublin District, added that in his opinion, “the firing on the crowd was carried out without orders, was indiscriminate, and unjustifiable, with the exception of any shooting which took place inside the enclosure.” The findings of these courts of inquiry were suppressed by the British Government, and only came to light in 2000.”

The Cairo Gang was responsible for surveilling and torturing a number of innocents and genuine guerrillas and Collins know that making them dead would send a message.  It did.  Fighting would intensify and British response and overreach to the incident would lead to the withdrawal of all British forces in a little over two years.  One can debate the morality and efficacy of assassinating constabulary and military forces but the Irish justified their actions in much the same way one would put down a rabid dog.  There are instances where defensive violence is the answer.  Kirby Ferris provides an interesting perspective on this question:

“Perhaps the world isn’t the way we wish it would be. We all might wish that evil men could be persuaded from their vile behavior with bleeding heart entreaties, a kiss on the cheek, or proper toilet training. But it ain’t that way, folks, Pacifism is a sickness, an actual moral perversity, and dangerous when its effects spread to anyone else beside the pacifist. You may choose to walk to the cattle car, but damn you if you let your children be led up the ramp. You must never allow any group or government to steal your right to exercise armed lethal force in a just situation.”

I certainly consider the Non-Aggression Principle to be a cornerstone of a free society but I do not support nor defend pacifism which to me is a sure road to self-destruction and extinction of your kind.  Ireland had had enough and Collins became the instrument whereby liberation would be granted.

The Irish insurgency in the 20^th century is a splendid example of how to do it successfully and the behavior of British forces in Ireland is a textbook example of how to incite one and subsequently lose the fight you picked.

Collins is yet another guerrilla who got it right.  I recommend three books for further reading:

The Path to Freedom: Articles and Speeches by Michael Collins

Michael Collins: The Man Who Made Ireland by Tim Pat Coogan

The Squad: and the Intelligence Operations of Michael Collins by T. Ryle Dwyer

I’ve heard many good arguments in opposition to voting. The arguments were so compelling that I adopted the non-voting stance for quite awhile. I mean, it just seemed so natural for someone who doesn’t believe in authority to gravitate towards this position; it seemed like a no-brainier to me. I completely understand that behind every pull of the lever, and in back of every check of the box, lies aggression, or the threat of it. This is problematic for me, because the non-aggression principle is foundational to my philosophy. Therefore, I abandoned the act of voting, and swore I would never vote again.

Along with coming to the conclusion that voting is aggression, I also had other reasons for swearing off voting. I see democracy as nothing more than a perpetual war of the collectives, and I wanted no part in that any longer. In a battle of collectives, the vote is the lowly grunt, and as an individualist, I am much more than that. I own me, I own my labor, I own my property, and frankly, that ain’t up for a vote. That was basically my position, and I held it for a long time, and I defended that position fiercely. However, I try to be as honest with myself as I possibly can, so this means from time to time, I send my own beliefs back through the logic mill to check them for errors. Through internal cross-examination, I believe I have discovered an error within the principled non-voting position. I stated earlier that my property is not up for a vote, and I believe that is where the error lies.

My aim with this essay is to try and lay out a logical and factual counter-argument to the non-voting position. I have found that many of the non-voting arguments appeal to emotion, specifically to pride,which I admit, can have the power to win over many people. But I am the kind of guy who constantly searches for the truth, so I specifically look for these kind of errors, and when I spot them I know I have to tread lightly. I really don’t want to focus on one specific argument, because many good arguments have come from the principled non-voting camp, and if I was to try and refute every point, I would end up writing a book. Rather, I would like to try and strike at the root of these arguments; I will attempt to collapse them at their foundations.  My goal is to focus on the principle, because I no longer consider non-voting a principled position for the anarchist. As a caveat, I will admit, I do find a difference between the statist voter, and the principled anarchist voter, as one could be considered offensive and one could be considered defensive. One is based in the destruction of property rights, one struggles to preserve property rights. I don’t need to tell you which position the statist holds.

The reason voting is even possible is because the position of property rights has been surrendered. This is a fact, and it cannot be argued against. Here are the facts:
1. You own property
2. You surrender it to the state
3. You do nothing

Whether you like it or not, the only principled position there is has already been lost. How you feel about it, or what you think may happen to you, does not matter. This is the reason I have trouble calling the the non-voting position principled, as struggle to find the principle in it. The second you fail to defend your property, is the second that the concept of property rights is sacrificed. The facts of the matter are this:

1. The property you surrendered to the state is used to fund the democratic process
2. This makes voting possible in the minds of the masses

3. This makes individual property right impossible

I’ve heard some say that they are too proud to try and regain lost liberty and property through the ballot box, and I have to wonder why.  If you let them take it in the first place, how is there any room left for pride? I would like to take a minute here to point out my blinding hypocrisy and cowardice. I understand that I do not defend my own property, but this still does not change the FACT that I surrendered it in the first place. The consequences of what would  become of me does not matter, because if you do not defend your property, who will? You have a duty to yourself to try and recover some of your freedom and property. The non-voting stance seems to me to be overwhelmingly altruistic, because an individual is “too proud” to try and recover what they claim is theirs. When we examine the facts, you already surrendered your liberty and property to the state, and now you take no steps to recover your losses, this seems very anti-individualistic to me.

Now, I don’t want anyone to think I am calling for violence or anything crazy like that, all I am stating are the facts. All I am trying to say is that as long as the idea of property rights has been surrendered to the state, voting ought to be done. As long as the only principled stance has been surrendered, no other principled stances can be taken, because that one sacrifice makes it all possible, as it always comes back to property rights.  I am simply saying that we must educate those as to why we vote; why we have to vote. It is a near worthless defensive maneuver and a very crude way to try and salvage some liberty and property, but it can have decent results locally. I am not saying it can or will reverse tyranny, I am only saying that it ought to be used while we try and educate others on the concept of property rights, and how there is no middle when it comes to this idea. It’s all or nothing; either you own your property, or you don’t; either it’s theft, or it’s not. These are the principles that need to be spread. Who cares about a principled non-voting position, time wasted here could have been spent educating others on property rights.  I do not advocate for violence, because I have an understanding of this: as long as the guns are drawn when ideas are born, property rights will never be respected, and without property rights, you are a slave. To advocate for violence other than self-defense is to advocate for the perpetual continuance of human slavery.

Some would say that this is counter productive and would only serve to make the state more efficient, and maybe that’s right. It still does not change the fact that your property is what makes the state possible in the first place. I argue for voting based on the principle of property rights, and I will use the ballot box to try to guard and recover at least some of my property, and if this makes the state more efficient, then so be it. It is not my goal to make the fiction known as the state more efficient, because I understand that there is no state. My goal is to preserve my property. I understand that this is a self-interested position, but so is every other position I hold. Again, here are the facts:

1. There is no state
2. There is only individuals
3. Some individuals claim your property is theirs
4. You surrender your property to these individuals
5. The idea of Individual property rights is lost
6. This means that, factually, your property is up for a vote

Until the idea of property rights is respected; until every individual stands up to the idea of the state and says, “no you can’t have my property.” I will continue to vote, because I understand that my property is funding evil. The non-voting position is not principled, it is a feel-good position that is adopted by feel-good anarchists, because there is no risk in it, and those are the facts. I consider myself an anarcho-abolitionist, because I understand that when all forms of slavery are abolished, the logical conclusion is anarchy. I also understand that it is not the act of voting that makes me a slave, it is the loss of my property rights that enslaves me. Here is the worst part of it, I am the one who enslaves myself, and that is a fact. Every time I hand over my property to the individuals calling themselves the state, I add one more link to the chains I have created for myself, and the chains become a little heavier with each link. I am a slave to the concepts of other individuals, and I have accepted this, for now. This means my pride is already forfeit, therefore any non-voting argument that appeals to emotion is fallacious.  To all of those who believe that the state is nothing more than a group of indivdiuals who claim the monopoly privilege on the use of force, I have a question to ask: would the state relinquish this privilege if everyone stopped voting? Logic tells me they wouldn’t.

I still wait for a logical, principled non-voting argument that is not founded in hyperbolic emotion.

“Since there is no such entity as ‘the public,’ since the public is merely a number of individuals, the idea that ‘the public interest’ supersedes private interests and rights can have but one meaning: that the interests and rights of some individuals take precedence over the interests and rights of others.” ~ Ayn Rand

The “Stop Online Piracy Act”, if passed, will allow “content owners” (studios, TV networks and record labels mainly) to order entire websites taken down if anybody posts “pirated content” there or even links to same. With so many videos being uploaded to Youtube and the like, monitoring or pre-approving videos is impossible and Google is on record as saying this bill will kill off Youtube completely.

The existing piracy controls are bad enough: the “content owners” can issue take-down notices when they spot piracy, but as long as Youtube or the like takes the stuff down (barring a counter-notification), Youtube can’t be held legally responsible.

The classic role of the record companies going back to the first years of rock was to sign up a good bar band, lock ‘em into a ghastly contract, get ‘em radio time, promote the hell out of their album(s), get ‘em concerts and pay them a relative pittance for the first few years. That was the norm.

That norm is breaking down because via Youtube and the like, brand new artists can connect directly with their audiences. The artist makes more money off of google adsense than they would as an obscure act on a large label, they can sell direct on iTunes or the like and they also sell CDs directly. Via the tracking on Youtube for number of views they build proof of their audience – which leads to either concert gigs and/or a contract with a record label that doesn’t rape them.

This is exactly what Justin Beiber did.

Here’s some other examples – pay attention to the number of views:

Ronald Jenkees  - almost 8 million hits on that one song and over a quarter mil subscribers to his channel.

Andy McKee  - 42 million views! He’s signed with a small label specializing in acoustic/folk, which is probably a much better deal than a major label.

This sort of thing is pure poison if you’re one of the execs at a big parasitic label. SOPA is how you stop it.

And it’s not just music – the same model is now breaking over into movies. The classic case so far is Freddiew – ever week he does a 2min or so video (usually “action”) and puts it on his Youtube channel, like so: Whose gun is it, anyway?

He has almost 3 million subscribers, over 500 million video views. He’s making enough cash off of google ads to pay himself and at least two others a full-time salary, plus finance the making of a full-length movie (in progress). He’s also gotten big enough to do web ads for the Battlefield games and did a spin-off of “Cowboys And Aliens” featuring the director of same.

In 10 years it’s a dead cinch Freddie will be directing more and better full-blown movies. No question. Will there be a studio as his “master”? I’d bet against it! He might well cut deals with direct-to-online outlets like Hulu, or sell exclusive-for-a-while rights to anybody from Netflix to DirecTV, and later break out completely into theaters.

THIS is the threat the major media sees out of Youtube – not piracy! They want to remain parasites between the artists and audience and will stop at nothing to prevent that…and they’ve bought off enough federal legicritters to be a threat to do it.

Note that this isn’t just “me talking” – researchers as highly placed as Harvard U are coming to very similar conclusions, at least as far as music goes.

PS: there is an alternate theory going around as to SOPA’s real ends that I think has some weight, but for reasons I’ll explain I think my theory is the more “dominant”. The other line of thinking is that “the powers that be” don’t like how much exposure of government abuses are being played on Youtube and the like.

I think this is a lesser factor, and might explain some quiet push being put on some of the legislators in the back rooms from the US-DOJ or the like. But it does not explain the fervent effort being put forward by all of the major media players in the music and movie industries. We know that’s where most of the money and lobbying for SOPA is coming from and again, this obvious connection between Youtube and the direct artist-to-audience links is a terrifying thing – for the parasites.

If you’re reading this for pleasure, you’re very likely a rifleman or an aspiring rifleman (I include women in the word “rifleman” because I remember what proper English is, even though I seldom speak it). If you’re a rifleman, you might have thought about what all your hard won skill might be useful for. So have I.

The rifleman in modern society is akin to a ham radio in a smart phone world. The smart phone is quick and chock full of capabilities that are a lot more interesting in terms of the phone’s screen than of the real, physical, and interactive world. It is new, and keeping up with the latest model is a sure way to engage in what sociologists would call “conspicuous consumption”, so you can let everyone in the checkout line at the supermarket know that you can afford the latest and greatest as you text away (or whatever you do with those damn things). Your smart phone can gather all the data you need to come up with a firing solution for your precision shot in just a minute or two. You can even buy a mount for your picatinny rail on which to plant the phone (never miss a call as you ‘send it’). You can use your phone to watch movies and listen to music. You always know that if there is an emergency, or your car breaks down you don’t have to worry. You can always be aware of what’s going on everywhere, except directly around you.

The ham radio is not new or sexy. The barista at Starbucks is not likely to be impressed by the skills of an amateur radio operator. It doesn’t do a plethora of cool things. It’s pretty much a communication tool.

In the extremely unlikely event that the thin veneer of our placid and peaceful society is somehow ripped away, the cell phone network is likely to be compromised. In the event the batteries cannot be charged, the phone’s life will be measured in hours. It will then be a useless piece of garbage. Millions of smart phone owners who are totally dependent will be left jonesing for their smart fix. They will be expecting that they can get bailed out with a quick call or text. The idea that they should have found some other way out would be unfathomable to them.

Ham radios are intended to be used as a backup to regular communication in the event of an emergency. Their users think ahead on how to keep power supplied and replenished. The technology is relatively simple and robust.So it is with the rifleman.

The rifleman, like the ham radio is not the flashiest. He is probably not perceived as especially useful by most people. A male model or newscaster would appear to the common modern American to be preferable to the rifleman. But in an emergency, when most people’s reality is turned upside down, the rifleman is who everyone else will look to for guidance and leadership.

So far I have conveyed that the rifleman is someone who we hope is never needed, is not well understood by the masses, and who has a skill that seems out of date and out of place in modern society unless the worst happens, and the thin veneer of stability is worn away. Let’s examine the rifleman as he was conceived in our country to better understand him in his proper context.

When America still existed as British colonies, communities had to band together to some degree to protect themselves from the wild, and from invaders. The able bodied men were mandated to answer this call of responsibility. It was understood that although you may be asked to give up everything- your home, the well-being of your family, your livelihood, and possibly your life, it was necessary for the survival of the community that you take up arms if it was necessary. In antiquity, they called the collective body of riflemen the “militia”. This is not currently a politically correct word, and is not a productive term to use anymore. The media has undermined the meaning of this word, and turned it upside down, as they have with a great many other things.

The riflemen of old functioned not so much out of rights, but out of responsibilities. These responsibilities were to their communities. Community in those days meant that you had an extended circle of family and friends that you had to answer to for your words and deeds. Note that communities have largely been left behind in favor of mobility and privacy.

When it came time to overthrow the ruler of the original American colonies, our own Founding Fathers recognized an important principle that they later found necessary to articulate in the nation’s primary governing document: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Obviously at that time, the rifleman was still a necessity to the security of his community, and to his burgeoning nation.

In time the wealth of the nation flourished. Consider this quote by John Adams: “I must study politics and war, that our sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. Our sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain.” He got his wish, but at what cost (a nation of pansies perhaps)?

As the nation flourished, a couple important things happened. First, the notion of the community began to dissolve. We became more mobile and lost the geographic bonds forged among family, friends, and neighbors. Second, we became specialists. We decided that instead of maintaining a militia of the common man, we would develop an institution of professional militia. In the case of threats outside our borders, this took the shape of a professional military. In the case of civil unrest and crime, this became the police. This makes a lot of sense because people who do a lot of something and do it frequently tend to get very good at it.

The loss of communities and the rise of specialization must be considered together. The professional militia, the military and police, no longer served the face of their family and neighbors, or answered to their own conscious. Gone was the “town meeting” style of governance from the old colonies that left every man to consider his actions by his own compass. Instead they answered to superiors and followed orders, or more significantly, they followed the culture that began to develop inside their organizations. As this occurred, the average citizen began to disassociate himself increasingly from such matters.

In the present, the average man finds himself immersed in matters related to his specialization, and then to his entertainment. The plight of another in his “community” does not compel him to act. He leaves this to the “professional”.

Not only is the average man in modern society generally unwilling to come to the aid of his community in an emergency, it is very likely that he is unable to do so. He might be able to operate a cell phone to call the “professionals” but the odds of him conveying the important information quickly and efficiently are not good. Modern people function in a state that assumes nothing bad will happen. When bad things happen, the shock that something bad and unexpected is happening induces an immediate onset of “Code Black”.

The performance of the professional can vary from community to community, and will depend largely on the culture of his organization. In some cases it works quite well. In others well it is a miserable and corrupt failure. In most cases it will likely fall somewhere in between. This professional is the most obvious and outward symbol of the government erected by the people of that jurisdiction, although the professional may not even be a member of the community in which he works. In short, the community reaps what it sows.

The rifleman, on the other hand, still cares about his community. He has not given up on his neighbor, although his neighbor largely disregards him.The dominant culture is upside down and inside out, and therefore shuns the rifleman.

The rifleman understands his duty as a member of his community, although his community may no longer function as such. He understands that as an able bodied man, it is incumbent on him to maintain readiness to act, whether that action involves the use of arms or an extra set of hands. He understands that coincidence of timing and circumstance may place his abilities in a situation that demands them.He may be called on to protect someone in his community who cannot protect himself. He may be called on to stop someone from doing harm unto others.He may even be called to protect his community at large.

The rifleman may not fit in well. He doesn’t care. The rifleman does not live in deference to contemporary fashion or relativism. He lives according to principle. He may not seem like much upon superficial inspection, but if Providence should place him in a moment of need, he will not disappoint. The problem now is that we need more like him.

Rifleslinger’s blog: http://artoftherifle.blogspot.com/