Tag Archives: Mikeb302000

Citizen or Serf?

There’s been a healthy debate going on regarding my article titled, “A Few Appropriate Remarks.” Orlin Sellers, someone I’ve come to know on the Internet at Mikeb302000’s gun control blog, has been arguing with me about whether paying taxes makes a person a slave.


My position in the debate has been that taxes and slavery are two different things. Yes, we are required to pay taxes, much as the serfs in the picture were required to surrender a portion of their produce to the lord of the land. We’re also obliged to follow the rules. But there is a key difference. Serfs or slaves has no choice in their own affairs. Citizens do. That was the essence of the argument presented by the Founders of this nation, that if we are to be taxed, we must have a voice in deciding those taxes.

At one point, we had the choice to go west. Much of the popularity of the western comes from our feeling that if we don’t like the way things are done, we can always seek freedom in the wilderness. My character, Henry Dowland, does just that. But until human beings start colonizing outer space, for the moment, this world is thoroughly occupied, and we’re left with life in society. Government is how we manage that.

To be sure, our government does try to spill over the boundaries that we have allowed it to operate in. The NSA and the IRS are two recent examples in a long history. But we have the power and the duty to rein in government. As George Washington warned us, government is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. The difference is found here:


and here:


As long as we exercise those rights, we are citizens. If we are silent, we become serfs.

What’s Your Take?

Have a look at this video:

I see a fine example of the human spirit to overcome whatever obstacles life throws at us. I also like the man’s remark that foreign invaders should think twice when even this fellow will be armed.

But notice what one of the Internet’s best known gun control freaks uses for a tag in his post about this:


He called the man in this video a disqualified person.

We’ve been discussing what makes someone qualified or disqualified to own guns over at Mikeb’s site. He has stated that physical disabilities, including obesity, make someone unfit to own a firearm. Of course, my assessment of his position is that he wants few if any Americans to be armed. He would disagree with the way I interpret his desires, and that’s fine. But I find the idea that someone who has no arms but who demonstrates his ability to operate a firearm safely is still disqualified from owning one to be a revolting notion.

Remember these two articles, Mikeb’s and mine, when you think about supporting gun control.

A Sacred Document of a Sacred Idea

Take a look at this document:


This is the Constitution of the United States of America. I get into tangles all the time over at Mikeb302000 about the nature of this document. Mikeb loves to point to the elements that offend the modern leftist–slavery and the Second Amendment being the predominate targets. By contrast, I see our constitution as sacred.

Understand that by sacred, I don’t mean perfect or beyond change. I have discussed here, for example, how I wish the first two amendments were written and what I see as circumstances that would justify overthrowing the constitutionally legitimate government. Certainly, the document itself has provisions for amendment, showing a recognition from the start that changes might be necessary as time went by.

That being said, there are fundamental principles of our constitution that should not be changed. It establishes a nation and defines the government that will regulate that nation, and that definition sets strict limits on what powers each branch of the government may have. It divides government into three branches to place further limits on the extent of that power. The first ten amendments enumerate rights that the Founders regarded as necessary to protect by name.

But the argument gets made that we don’t really need such protection anymore. Surely a modern, democratic society can maintain rights by the consensus of the people.

Think again. An example of the dangers of that point of view came up yesterday (20 August 2013) in an interview on NPR’s All Things Considered with Alan Rusbridger, editor in chief of The Guardian. I’ve given a link to the full story, but I’m going to point out one significant statement that Rusbridger made:

And this may be – sound strange to American listeners, but there is no First Amendment in the U.K. and there is no bar on prior restraint, the idea that the state could prevent a news organization from publishing by taking back its source material.

Caught it, yes? Without the First Amendment, there is nothing in Britain to prevent the government from blocking publication of a story.

What story are we talking about? The one reported by Glenn Greenwald of Edward Snowden’s whistleblowing about the American NSA’s invasions of privacy. The British government also detained Greenwald’s partner, David Miranda, under powers given by terrorism legislation. This is one of those coincidences that those of us who enjoy language note, since it was another Miranda who caused a limitation of police power in the United States.

There are people who claim that all of this security theater is keeping us safe, who see what has happened in Britain as a model for what should be done here. To them, we are nowhere near tyranny, so we should just shut up and trust the government. (I’m talking to you, Mr. President.) That kind of sheepish attitude is unbecoming for people who have overthrown a government that was not respecting their rights, fought a civil war to defend rights, and who claim to love liberty today. The only way to guarantee that we don’t fall into the kind of police state that some of us warn about is to fight against every step in that direction.