Replies

My recent looks into my own genealogy led me to ask myself, "What would the government, circa 1790-1800, have done if my g-g-g-grandfather, the famous Gen.---, had posessed & used cannon ( on his own plantations, with no threat or harm to anyone else or their property )????? The same general ( & other ancestors ) provided arms & uniforms for troops, so why could he( they ) not purchase & maintain their own private arsenal???? Here in Texas, many of the normal constraints of game & fish law are not enforcable against persons on their own property, under certain restrictions. Ditto alchohol & other such items & their use. Why must private property, confined to personal real estate, continue to be forbidden? The ultimate Libertarian question, perhaps. I find the lack of inherant moral constraint ( within supposed Libertarian philosophy ) to be unjustified, in light of the corruptable human spirit. However, someone like a Neal Boortz, & his proposed interpretations of proper US Gov behavior, is very hard to refute. Without advocating any violation of any law, I must ponder, who is the Imperial US Federal Government ( that which is so clearly defined by THE LAW-US Constitution & the debates of the Federalist Papers, etc ) to tell us what we may & may not possess, on our own premises?

This is a really tough question and anyone who tells you he has an easy answer is wrong. Yes, you should have maximum discretion to act on your property as you wish. But no right is unlimited. If you dump poison on your property, it can get into the groundwater and then affect my property. If you build a big enough bomb on your property, or a cannon pointed in my direction, it sure as heck is going to get my attention.

What really yanks my chain is a restriction on my liberty based on a low probablility that I might misuse it. Almost anything can be misused, and most things have been misused by someone, somewhere, sometime. For reasons either misguided or sinister, legislators attempt to safeguard us from everything. The increase in safety is marginal (or negative for many gun control laws); the decrease in liberty is substantial.

Government at all levels absorbs 1/3 to 1/2 of everyone's income. I find that unacceptable; but I know a lot of people who find it acceptable, even desirable. As I have posted several times, the problem isn't so much the ever-growing government, but the people who don't mind it and actually support the idea (if they think they can get something out of it). In effect, the majority have voted to enslave and/or restrict the liberty of everyone (to a degree) in exchange for (supposed) security. Unfortunately, it's even worse in other parts of the world.