The Fallicy of Restrictions on Property

Let us assume some objects of argument, to avoid conflict in the text. These are assumptions based on the arguments against liberty we hear from the Statists:

1. Government believes that it is sworn to first and foremost protect society at large.
2. Government assumes that public safety supersedes all other forms of Liberty (their logic is that without public safety there is no society and thus no 'real' Liberty... see other papers about Liberty to understand why the government’s argument is false)
3. Government gives itself the authority to determine the nature and validation of what exactly is public safety and thus leaves it to those it punishes (we individuals) to prove the law wrong (at exorbitant costs mind you)
4. Society tends to over-inflate their fears of their fellow man and thus, easily demonize each other. -- I will digress here a moment and explain: Imagine running into a person and asking them, "Do you feel that anyone should be allowed to have hands or fists?" Everyone would say yes. Then ask, "Should people be allowed baseball bats?" Most will say yes. Then ask "Should people be allowed firearms?" A few less will say yes. Then ask, "Anti-aircraft missiles?" much fewer yeses. Finally ask, "Nuclear weapons?" and apart from a few people like myself, the answer will most surely be no. Now ask them why. The answer is always the same. They are afraid that someone will just go crazy and use it. In other words, these same people whom don't have an issue with me having fists grow more worried about the nature of their fellow man as the tool increases in power of destruction. The more dangerous the weapon, in their mind, the more dangerous the person. Of course, that's not logic, it is emotion. After all, the trustworthiness of an individual should not be measured against how much destruction they can do, but instead, measured on their willingness to actually do this destruction. I’ve noted in a past paper that for some reason mankind seems to believe that the number of victims is relative to the number of seconds it takes to inflict damage. That is, 5 victims of a bombing are much worse (scarier) than 50 victims of a serial killer that took 30 years to do it (I challenge you to name 10 current serial killers, while I’m sure you can name 20 acts of terror that occurred in the same time frame). The statistical odds don’t change, the probability of finding yourself in either situation remain constant, but for some reason, the ‘terror’ of the quick and many dead is more crippling for the logical side of the mind.  Almost as if dying in a crowd of people is more important (embarrassing?). In reality, of course, the amount of time it takes is irrelevant. (note: counterarguments always try to point out that ‘well if it takes longer perhaps it would be ended by the good guys’ – a fallacious argument, because of the word ‘if’…one could say, ‘well if everyone else was armed…’ and return the argument back to zero, that is, force it away from the length of time and back toward the act itself)

Now taking into account this logical progression, is it not then the right of government to simply create law for everything? (note: you should know by now I do not subscribe to this line of logic, but if you’re new here, put down the pen, read some of my other papers)

Let us create a fictional example. Imagine the NTSB does a study on highway fatalities and some do-good social institution interprets the data to make the assessment that many of these fatalities might (MIGHT) have been avoided if two things were done: 1. Restrict vehicle speeds through special vehicle restrictions and 2. Force all vehicles on the road to use specific tire weights and sizes. Standardized tires by vehicle class and weight.

This institution sits on its findings, occasionally taking it out and having it obliterated by peer review. But then, one wintery day on highway 80 going into Illinois there is an 80 car pileup. 30 dead, hundreds injured. CNN reports that it all began because of two factors: 1. Speeding and 2. The tire was that doughnut spare tire. CNN reports the crap out of it, they blister us with facts and the faces of the dead. We see videos, we see interviews with people in hospital beds. Of course, we see the one little girl, in the hospital waiting room, with her grandparents because her father was killed and her mother is in critical condition, just out of surgery. We’re flooded with the falseness of it all. The truth is: people died in traffic, perhaps a statistical glitch, perhaps at the end of the year it is a wash, no one knows yet, that's for sure. No one even, to this day, understand the whole thing: what is considered a valid research length? How many people would normally die by this relatively new technology? How does other technology affect the outcome? And so on and so on.  The lie: is that too many people died in one moment that somehow could have been avoided.

Suddenly this institution with its fancy report about tires has a leg to stand on; it sends its paper to the local legislative representative. The Rep is shocked to find that someone has already known about this and races it to the appropriate assembly/senate meeting and within a few weeks, a new law is passed that will require all vehicles to have governors on them for speed and that all tires be of a certain type, size, and weight. The whole time, of course, the legislative body is bolstered by the press when it keeps pressing the dead in the face of voters and appealing to their built-in distrust of their neighbors. A local tire manufacturer gets the word, backs the law, and starts lobbying for the exclusive right to manufacture the tires; effectively putting their competition out of business.

Let’s say as well, that the act is a Felony. One loses their rights and probably receives a prison term of about ten years.

Think hard about this for a moment. A car is a very expensive object. First off, it is an object of our Estate. Remember, that Estate starts with the physical body, that is, “I” am my Estate and through it, all other objects of property are included. The car is me for all intent and purpose, because of the fact that it took physical time to earn money that I used to purchase the vehicle. That time I will never get back and as I age I have even less of it, thus, its value increases. This means all objects in my estate are priceless as determined by other people. My applying a price to property in my estate is determined only by me, can only be determined by me It's my property, created by my accumulation of skill. Only I make the final determination about when and how to change my Estate (sell it, junk it, change it).

So, let us say when someone chooses not to abide by this asinine law and one afternoon is pulled over by the gun-toting arm of the government. He is stripped of his vehicle, his rights (right to guns, right to vote) and is imprisoned for 2 years before he is paroled at which point his time is still not his own and the government requires him to participate in the ‘after’ effects of prison.  He has become a political prisoner, for life. A political prisoner is an individual that has done nothing to anyone else but been told, by the state that something about their character is criminal. Most people are smart enough to consider the arrest of intellectuals by Pol Pot as immoral, illegal, and wrong; but they struggle with recognizing there is no difference in arresting 'the poor' who can't afford fancy tires.

To further, illustrate how it's a political attack against individualism, what if this person was 70 years old and had been driving since he was 16. Beyond this ridiculous law, there was nothing wrong with his vehicle. In other words, his standing within the community as a safe and good person is irrelevant to the law, when it should be everything.

Even if you consider yourself a socialist, doesn’t his individual nature apply to how he handles himself in society? Or is the real aim of socialism to destroy individualism and create a species of mankind that is indistinguishable on all levels? I have a hard time believing that anyone would believe such idiocy, but yet, every day more laws are written that undermine a person’s life and commitment to his own sense of morality. Every day more laws are written that bland everyone down; that whittle us all into the same shape.

My ideas of being good, apparently aren’t good enough for the government and thus, they believe that because I might not be what they expect (that is the automation of their narrow viewed conformity) they need to regulate what I can get my hands around.

This, of course, is in direct opposition to nature, which says in basic terms, that which I create in my life is mine to determine the value and use thereof.  

-- Obviously, also such law is un-Constitutional. But, let's face it no one cares about the Constitution anymore. It is only ever drugged out when someone needs it for their own designs. Other people using it is seen as ridiculous.

You may think I’m hitting way off base by using what appears to be an impossible vehicular law, but frankly, you can substitute gun for car, a magazine for tire, bullet button for speed governor and come away with the same reality.  Good people, destroyed by the government for political reasons.