Recently I commented on a web forum about a news event in Portsmouth New Hampshire. Specifically, I opined that displaying a firearm at the event was probably more destructive to the goal of increasing liberty than helpful to it.
I received some harsh criticism immediately and, while I appreciate the thought and effort by two of the posters (one being the person who had committed the act – or caused the news story and one oither interested party), I am unconvinced by their arguments.
Here is a snip from the conversation:
1. I said
“Actually, I would say it is more a matter of manners and respect for the people you wish to reach. It’s important to actually have a conversation with someone if you mean to convince the person of something (without coercion). If you introduce something that induces fear – whether you like it or not – you are practicing some of the same techniques which, when practiced by government, you find intolerable or at east reprehensible.”
and
“So again, it is a question of your goal. Sometimes it is unquestionably right to confront people with the question. I think in this case, it had no
chance to be seen as a message of liberty and hope, but rather as a gratuitous poke in the eye. I’m trying to see it from the perspective of the well-meaning and uneducated ‘crowd’.”
I suppose we have a difference of opinion here. Here is the reply:
2. (from Biker Bill)
“Patently, profoundly false. I don’t initiate force. I don’t violate my oath. I don’t lay claim to my neighbors’ negative rights. I peacefully
exercise /my/ rights, and won’t apologize for that to anyone who might thereby get the vapors. I don’t have to. That’s how we lose them.”
First, on the subject of the oath – I think I understand the reason for it and that is: a concise expression of life without coercion. I don’t know if a better expression could be constructed, but it fails to achieve its purpose if someone can ‘live by it’ and still find a way to use coercion (in the form of an implied threat. I don’t think much of taking an oath and then slithering away from the goal of non initiation. BTW, I will not take that oath.
Ostensibly, the purpose of carrying a gun (openly) to a mass event (an Obama Town Hall Meeting) was secondary to the purpose of going to the event. Will (the man who went to the event armed) claimed that he was there to question Obama.
I’m sorry but I can’t take that answer seriously, as Will is well aware that an armed citizen would not be allowed into the hall by virtue of the President’s security detail, so I think that answer was disingenuous (to use a big intimidating word).
As to the falsity of my claim that displaying a weapon in a crowd of unsuspecting (you could call them innocent) people is an act similar to the coercive acts of government agents who use the threat of force to ensure certain behaviors – I stand by it. The knowledge that some people fear it IS important and it goes to the definition of coercion.
All well and good, so Will is willing to risk the fear of others to suit his political purpose. The questions are:
is it necessary? If not necessary, it is categorically gratuitous. Even if it is only perceived to be so, this works against the purpose.
is it effective? If not effective, it is counterproductive or useless.
For the answer to whether or not it is effective, let’s see what Bill had to say about that:
3. Biker Bill:
“The publicity generated by this incident has been priceless. The only fool exposed (well, reinforced…) in that interview was Matthews. All
hail William the Conqueror, stunningly victorious in battle over MSM’s chattering class.”
Perhaps, within your circles this has been seen as a publicity coups, but I don’t think you are interested in the opinions of people who are not in your group and/or are not active in promoting personal liberty (whether or not they should be is not the question). None of the (outside of libertarian groups) people I have talked to see it that way. They (the people with whom I’ve discussed it outside of FSP etc.) see it as a gratuitous and provocative act and not one deserving of much respect.
If you are trying to convince people from outside of the FSP and the Libertarian Party of the goals of freedom, you have probably given yourself a black eye.
4. Biker Bill again:
“If we voluntarily modify our normal lawful behavior, … (much deleted) how will they ever learn to stop /expecting/ us to simply roll over and submit? Where and how does it end? If we validate their “authority,” they’ll only want more. It’s written all over history. As, generally, is the “where and how,” and it ain’t by peaceful education.”
So it seems that he admits the carrying of a gun in such a context is an invitation to violence.
I apologize for any misunderstanding of my criticism, but I think it’s plain that the diference between the republican/democrat/big government crowd – which uses force and coercion every day, and the small government/liberty crowd (if it can be said that Bill fairly represents it <which I admit may not be the case>, is just a matter of numbers or degree.
Welcome to Animal Farm.