There may be a misunderstanding of my statistics for Travis wrote "To compare Utah or Idaho, which are mostly open spaces to densely populated locations like DC or California with strict numbers isn't good. If you compare it per 100,000 people, it makes more sense to compare."
I want to stress here that the figures I have were not comparing the disproportionate populations, but WERE based on crimes per 100,000 people.
For instance, California has 17 times more robberies than Idaho per 100,000 people, but if we compare state to state (which would not be fair) then California as a state has hundreds of times more robberies than Idaho.
Keith makes a provocative post - one that will test our ability to see the middle way.
"When does a right to own or possess something infringe upon another's right to a harmless or non-violent society?
If I possess the right to own a gun can I also possess the right to own a slave, or even a thermal nuclear devise?
"The latter question seems ridiculous! How can a gun, slave or thermal nuclear devise be compared to each other? The comparisons are extreme, but they do all have a quality in common with each other. They differ in only the degree to which they take away from your right to live in a safe and harmless society.
"A gun is created with only one intent - to kill life. This is its only function. The fruits of a gun are the destruction of life - period. The fruits of a thermal nuclear devise are the same, but more extreme in its destructive power. The fruits of slavery are the destruction of a person's right to choose or decide for themselves.
"The argument could be made that all three rights of ownership (gun, nuclear and slave) are inherently anti-life by definition and have no place in an age of peace and enlightenment."
I'll tell you what I find interesting here - and that is both the left and the right use the same argument of being pro life to promote their cause of the restriction of freedom.
The political left want to restrict our freedom to own guns for the preservation of life and the anti abortion people also want to restrict freedom to preserve life.
Yet the interesting fact is that they both violently disagree with each other.
I personally believe that they are both violating the Principle of Freedom and that the flaw they see in each other's views are inherent in themselves and they cannot see it. In other words, there is hypocrisy on both sides in the name of restricting freedom.
The thing to be guided by here is the Principle of Freedom itself. Let us put it into words:
"That action or non action which brings more freedom for the individual, or the whole, than it takes away should not be infringed by any law or compulsion."
Now let us apply this principle to Keith's question:
"If I possess the right to own a gun can I also possess the right to own a slave, or even a thermal nuclear device?"
Now let us examine the nuclear issue. Nuclear weapons pose the threat of exterminating all life on the earth which would eliminate the most basic freedom of human life which is the "right to life."
In this case, laws restricting nuclear weapons for the whole of the planet would enhance the Principle of Freedom.
Concerning the issue of slavery, it should be obvious that the ownership of slaves would reduce the freedom of the whole.
It is an interesting fact though that this has not always been obvious.
During the Civil War here in the United States those who fought to keep slaves did so in the name of freedom as did those who fought against slavery. Many slave owners in the South believed that the Blacks did not have souls and thus keeping them in slavery was not much different than keeping a caged animal. They argued that slavery produced prosperity for the South and therefore enhanced the freedom for the whole country.
Most of those in the North felt the Blacks had souls and more logically argued that all humanity was diminished through slavery.
Today the fallacy of the argument of the slave owners is seen as obvious, but at that time, where many were subject to the group astral thought form, the vision was difficult for many who were close to the issue.
Even so it is today. There are as many distortions of the vision of the Principle of Freedom in the minds of the masses today as there ever was. Many of them are more subtle than was the slavery issue.
For instance the gun control is seen by some as a way to enhance freedom, but the truth is that gun control does not enhance freedom any more than the ownership of slaves brought freedom to the Old South. The mistake in vision is very much the same.
Gun control is a method of enslaving the desires of many law abiding citizens to bring an illusionary freedom for those with an opposing ideology.
Let me again repeat my statistics and keep in mind we are comparing apples and apples to a great degree because I did not compare state populations but these figures are based on an equal population of per 100,000
In the nation's capital the crime rates per 100,000 from 1990 - 1998 are:
Murder - 71
Robbery - 1143
New York State
Murder - 10.4
Robbery - 453
Murder - 10.8
Robbery - 340
Murder - 3.1
Robbery - 19.8
Washington DC has the strongest gun control lass and the violent gun related crimes are the highest of all.
New York is next in strictness and they are next in line. California is also restrictive but a little more than New York and their crime rate is similar to New York.
Idaho is very tolerant to gun ownership, the most conservative state in the whole country, and yet the general populace has much less interference of freedom from gun related crimes.
If there is more freedom from violent crime in areas where there is more freedom to have guns, then how can one support the idea of taking away the freedom to own a gun in the name of freedom???
It cannot be done.
Such an argument can not be made in the name of freedom, but can only be made in the name of belief or feeling. And the Principle of Freedom dictates that we must allow the freedom of opposing points of view, even if they are repulsive to us - if that point of view does not restrict or diminish the freedom of the whole.
I keep returning to this principle for a reason. I know some of you see this as deviating from the interesting philosophy we usually discuss, but such is not the case.
The Principle of Freedom is the core differentiating principle between the approaches of the Brotherhood of Light and the Left Hand Path. The sad fact is that many who see themselves as representing Light are deceived into accepting and even promoting diminished freedom and thus become unwilling servants for the Dark Ones, until the truth makes them free.
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future."
--Adolph Hitler, 1933
Copyright 2000 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved