Wait – stop the presses! Doug Casey agrees with Michael Moore
I don't want to be against anything just because Moore is for
it. Words speak for themselves; to discredit them because you
don't like the speaker is a variation of the classic ad hominem
fallacy. I happen to agree with his anti-foreign-war stance; he
could be channeling me on that subject, from what I've read. But
that's the only thing I agree with him about, as far as I know.
If I cared
what the public thought, I wouldn't even mention that, however,
since the public seems to react robotically when you push certain
hot buttons. One guy accused me of being a raving socialist because
I mentioned that I agreed with the sentiment of the title of the
I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten – after
saying I hadn't read the book, just liked its title. He illogically
jumped several conclusions, upon hearing the mention of a book
he didn't think he liked, but probably never read. Randites do
that when they hear the philosopher Kant mentioned. It's odd how
reactive people are. The public doesn't reason; it emotes and
reacts. It makes me quite sympathetic to Cornelius Vanderbilt
when he said "The public be damned." That's certainly true when
it comes to gun control.
At any rate,
in an article he wrote called Celebrating the Prince of Peace
in the Land of Guns, Moore dismisses the entire case for
guns as being: "… because too many white people are afraid of
black people. Period." In this article he asserts that people
– white people – want to have guns because they are racists.
The mind boggles. How could anyone say such a thing with a straight
face? Black people own guns. I've seen stats that show more gun
ownership among white people in the US, but a lot of black people
own them, and that's after many decades of Jim Crow laws and other
discrimination discouraged, or prohibited, them from owning guns.
It's easier to keep folks down if they can't defend themselves.
It's an incredibly stupid statement – and completely wrong. He's
a knave as well as a fool. Guns have been called "the great equalizer"
precisely because they give the little guy, the weak guy, the
poor guy, the means to resist crime and oppression by those who
happen to be stronger or more trained in the art of war.
how the argument is now just about ridiculous details, like how
many rounds a magazine can hold. The argument should be about
principle: either a man has a right to defend himself or he doesn't.
Historically, only slaves are denied weapons.
Only a gun can give a 100-pound female the ability to stop
a 200-pound male attacker.
Exactly. So predictably, the Obama administration's move to limit
gun ownership is not just the wrong thing to do, but the opposite
of the right thing. Blaming the tool instead of looking into the
causes of violence only ensures more violence.
And disarming the people only ensures more tyranny.
Well, it sure makes the tyrant's job easier. Stalin, Hitler, Mao
– they all pushed for what people call gun-control legislation
today. It was a prelude to gun confiscation, and we all know where
that led. It will happen here too – not that I expect armed resistance
from US citizens should a genuine tyranny arise. To start with,
probably only 15% of the households in the country even own a
gun – at least beyond a .22, a shotgun, or a little pocket pistol.
Gun owners are a tiny minority. And they're very law abiding,
so they'll do as they're told. No way is someone going to defend
his right to self-defense when a SWAT team has his family in its
A good part
of the problem is that Americans seem to think the right to be
armed depends on the Second Amendment. It doesn't. Laws and constitutions
are changed and/or disregarded all the time. The right to be armed
is part of being a free human being. People who want others to
defend them are worms. Unfortunately that includes about 98% of
the people on this sorry planet.
worse than that. Boobus americanus thinks the police
and the army both can and will protect him. They can't and won't.
It's critical to remember that military and paramilitary organizations
are loyal first to their comrades and then to their employers.
You are really just an afterthought. And worse yet, most of these
guys have an extra Y chromosome. They're basically the last ones
I want to see with guns – much less a legal monopoly on them.
to the photo of Obama firing the shotgun; it looks completely
staged and phony to me. I think it'll backfire on him.
You think that was PR? Why would he bother? His constituency doesn't
want to see him with guns, and his opposition will never vote
for him, no matter what he says or does. What good could it possibly
It's pure politics, like that famously idiotic picture of Michael
Dukakis in a tank. He's trying to position himself as being
reasonable; guns are okay for sporting purposes like shooting
clay pigeons, but tighter controls are necessary to keep them
out of the hands of criminals and lunatics. But look at the photo
– his stance is all wrong. The gun is too high on his shoulder,
and he's leaning back. He looks like he's never touched a gun
in his life, let alone fired one with hefty recoil. It's a completely
ridiculous and insincere PR stunt.
Let's hope the photo will come back to haunt him.
[Chuckles] Indeed. On a related note, the news just came
out of this record-holding sniper Chris
Kyle being shot to death in Texas. He was apparently killed
by a friend of his who is a Marine suffering from post-traumatic
stress disorder. If that's true, it's almost certain that the
killer was on some kind of psychiatric drug.
The point about psychiatric treatment that you started
Yes. But to be honest, I have to say that I don't have a lot of
sympathy for Kyle. His record reportedly documents about 160 official
kills, but I've heard he claims the number was really around 250.
"Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and
you are a conqueror…"
Kill hundreds, while wearing a uniform, and you're a hero. Yes.
It's beyond belief to think that every single one of those people
he killed was an enemy soldier – let alone always his intended
target and with no collateral deaths. How can you even tell who
someone is when his face is obscured by a turban – especially
at such distances as a world-class sniper shoots?
If he's wearing a headscarf, he must be bad?
Evidently, to some. The guy was clearly an obedient, programmed,
and thoughtless servant of the state, trained to kill on command.
He liked to say he was "defending his country," but that is shamefully
disingenuous. It's a lie, actually. In fact, he was killing people
in their own country, people who were trying to defeat alien invaders
and their collaborators. I'm sorry his kids won't have their father
around, but the world is probably better off without him.
Do you think this whole gun thing is coming to a head?
It's interesting how recent events have galvanized the pro-gun
movement, even though it's quite small. It's not like it was when
I was a kid, and everybody had a gun or at least wanted one. Nobody
thought anything about using guns. Now they're on everyone's minds.
The Second Amendment seems to be the last shred of the Constitution
that serious people are actually willing to fight for – even though
the rest of the Constitution is a dead letter. People have given
up their right to due process, to refuse search and seizure, to
trial by a jury of their peers – even free speech is only allowed
in so-called free-speech
zones if a powerful enough politician is in town.
Ah, you heard about the Utah
Sheriffs' Association's refusal to comply with unconstitutional
gun laws? Seems to me that the Second Amendment being the
last bastion of freedom is no accident; it is, by its nature,
the one right you can't trample on without meeting armed resistance.
Well, they say the Second Amendment is the one needed to defend
the rest. But the rest are all gone now, so maybe it doesn't matter.
It's both ironic and perverse. How can you defend America if it
no longer exists? But there seem to be a few million people
who say they are willing to fight this one and are equipped to
do so. But if serious laws are passed, local sheriffs will roll
over like tired old dogs, and the state will crush anyone who
resists like a bug. Everyone is being preprogrammed to believe
there are home-grown terrorists everywhere – "see something, say
something." The outcome is preordained to be ugly.
thing someone can do is bury a few favorites and a whole bunch
of ammo someplace where it can't be found. You don't want to be
defenseless if things degenerate to the world of The
Road Warrior. That's like a 50-to-1 longshot, but being
caught unprepared would be very bad. Almost anything, both good
and bad, is possible in today's world.
Hm. It's easy to talk tough about prying guns from cold, dead
fingers, but how many people would actually man the barricades?
Almost zero. The average US tax slave is too well fed, to content
with what's on reality TV. They are unfree but don't even know
it. Pretty much like the cattle on my ranch. Les
Misérables they are not.
Not yet, anyway.
Yes. It's coming. But I'll go ahead and go on record saying that
the proper amount of gun control laws is zero.
Proper gun control is being able to hit your intended target.
For sure. That's why automatic weapons aren't good for much other
than suppressive fire in a military operation or providing unrealistic
action in movies. Yet 99% of Americans think they should be illegal,
which has essentially been the case since 1934. They'll cave in
on everything else like they did then. Like people all over the
world have done. I think absolutely everything should be legal.
If you treat people like irresponsible children, that's the way
they'll tend to act. They get the idea of "safety first," not
freedom, and that the authorities should protect them, ingrained
in their psyches from very early on.
Well, as you said at the start, none of this actually contradicts
the two possibilities I started with. I'm sure you're right that
there's a problem with the way psychological problems are treated,
especially the medicalization of counterproductive thought patterns.
But that doesn't mean the instant infamy of recent mass murderers
hasn't propelled people on the edge to engage in copycat grabs
at fame, even if it's negative fame. And the deeper we get into
the Greater Depression, the more desperate acts I suspect we'll
Right; all the more reason to take steps to defend yourself –
starting with removing yourself from harm's way.
As Mr. Miagi said, "Best way block punch, Daniel-San, is no be
Exactly. For me, that means spending most of my time in rural
Argentina, where the weather is nice, you can ride your horse
100 miles in any direction, and the wine is fantastic. In fact,
we're having a big party in about a month, so I invite everyone
reading this to come and see for themselves what
I'm building in Cafayate. But different strokes for different
folks. No one needs to do what I'm doing, but they definitely
need to something to spread their political risk beyond a single
jurisdiction, if they have not yet done so. It's the single most
important thing I can recommend today.
Very well then. Words to the wise.
Let's just hope people listen and decide to stop thinking like
Indeed. On that note, I understand the
book version of our past conversations published by Laissez
Faire Books is selling well.
Yes, I'm very pleased with the book and look forward to the next
volume, which will be more financially oriented. By the way, I
think that publishing Socratic dialogues, especially unblinking
and uncensored ones like ours, is very important. The world of
ideas has become stale and in desperate need for innovation, even
upheaval. That's why I'm excited about the Laissez
Faire Club. It is infusing a great body of radical ideas with
the energy of a commercial service. The model is new, creative,
and astonishingly productive. I'm a member of the Club, and I
encourage our readers to join as well. It's the
place to find the future of serious ideas in the grand liberal/libertarian
tradition. Everyone should join it – now, before they forget.