May 25, 2013 Leave a comment
The other day we were discussing the terrorism incident in London this week over at Jess’s Watchtower . Our normal complement there on this type of subject is about half-American and half British and we’ve become very good friends, who don’t pull punches . In other words we quite often bluntly state our minds and expect the same, it’s done with respect, and in truth there is at least as much light as smoke generated. How we sort out depends on the subject and is not very predictable, since we are all quite individualistic, sharing mostly that we love God and our countries. It’s a fun group and you should join us.
But this discussion above all broke down into national lines. Every Brit was resigned to waiting 20 minutes helplessly for the police, and every American was thunderstruck by the idea and incensed by the slow response time. Some of us thought that the policewoman should have shot better as well, although many of us thought she did OK.
At one point I was asked what in the world we were talking about when we used those contractions we are so familiar with, you know, PD, LEO, and CCW. But what left me with a rather hopeless feeling was this comment by one of the Brits, a distinguished educator, educated beyond my dreams, and an effective, not to say forceful, leader
“We are entirely dependent upon the Police”
It’s true of course, most of us have read of British subjects sentenced to life in prison for defending themselves in their home from an armed assailant. And I’m certain I speak for most American when I say, with that system, you are not free. To me and most likely to my compatriots it brings to mind a phrase that Thomas Jefferson used.
“Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.”
Which translates as, “I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.”
Because you see, as Americans, we believe that our “Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness” is for us to secure, not the government, for that way lies tyranny
And yet, Britain is amongst the most free countries in the world, and in truth we are the utopians here, we are also the reactionaries. For we are the one who tend to believe with the 3rd Marquess of Salisbury that
There is no danger which we have to contend with which is so serious as an exaggeration of the power, the useful power, of the interference of the State. It is not that the State may not or ought not to interfere when it can do so with advantage, but that the occasions on which it can so interfere are so lamentably few and the difficulties that lie in its way are so great. But I think that some of us are in danger of an opposite error. What we have to struggle against is the unnecessary interference of the State, and still more when that interference involves any injustice to any people, especially to any minority. All those who defend freedom are bound as their first duty to be the champions of minorities, and the danger of allowing the majority, which holds the power of the State, to interfere at its will is that the interests of the minority will be disregarded and crushed out under the omnipotent force of a popular vote.
Still many of us also believe along with Gladstone
But let the working man be on his guard against another danger. We live at a time when there is a disposition to think that the Government ought to do this and that and that the Government ought to do everything. There are things which the Government ought to do, I have no doubt. In former periods the Government have neglected much, and possibly even now they neglect something; but there is a danger on the other side. If the Government takes into its hands that which the man ought to do for himself it will inflict upon him greater mischiefs than all the benefits he will have received or all the advantages that would accrue from them. The essence of the whole thing is that the spirit of self-reliance, the spirit of true and genuine manly independence, should be preserved in the minds of the people, in the minds of the masses of the people, in the mind of every member of the class. If he loses his self-denial, if he learns to live in a craven dependence upon wealthier people rather than upon himself, you may depend upon it he incurs mischief for which no compensation can be made.
And in practical terms, there is something else. In a free country, the police are a reactive force, it cannot be otherwise. It is not their function to prevent crime, except possibly by deterrence. The prevention of crime is the responsibility of the citizen, to be aware, to report, and to be able to survive. As we here are so fond of saying
When you need the police in seconds, they are only minutes away
It’s true and it can not be otherwise, unless you would like a policeman stationed in your living room, personally I’ll pass, and take of myself.
Once we recognize it, like here on The Five then we can begin to solve it. But first we have to define the problem and lack of definitions is one of the problems.
Know thy enemy
- Insurgent Invaders Guarding the Immigration Watchtower (gulagbound.com)
- Why Are We Surprised By The Recent Obama Scandals? (richardbaris.wordpress.com)
- Federalist Papers Favorite Quote (rednationrising.wordpress.com)
- Purpose of Terrorism: To inflame, To divide (geelongnewsbook.wordpress.com)
- Disarmed Brits can only shoot savage … with a camera (wnd.com)
- Things that Brits find incomprehensible about the USA (reprog.wordpress.com)
- Man arrested in London on suspicion of terrorism offences (itv.com)
- London Terror Attack A Reminder Terrorism Is Not Over (heritage.org)