Necessary conflict

So on my one day of not being able to read blogs, Russ decides to get all political and stuff and brings up his favorite political topic: gerrymandering. Not really, I just like the way “gerrymandering” sounds. It should mean “illicit sexual activity in a public place,” or “tampering with a hairpiece.” Unfortunately it doesn’t, because the world would be a better place if that’s what it was.

Actually Russ’s interest was in gun control. I do not want my blog to become a political rant, because I can think of ten million things I would rather do than talk about a political topic that will ultimately not change anyone’s opinion or the government’s policy. But here is something that I have thought for a long time.

Utopia does not exist. It is impossible for it to exist, because that existence would enable a selfish opportunist to take advantage of it, thus ruining the party for everyone. And while I have no contempt for the idealist (I consider myself one much of the time), it is important to remember that government is not only responsible for creating the best possible end. It is also responsible for creating the best possible now. So, while we seek a perfect world, let us set aside the green grass and rainbows for a moment and be realistic.

Absolute power sucks. It also corrupts absolutely, and thus it must be avoided at all costs. Any government that you “trust” is a government that is one step too close to absolute power for my taste. Not trusting a government doesn’t imply disobedience, disloyalty, or intent to overthrow. It means not simply believing a government always intends the best for you or for everyone. It would be different if people were perfect or if the government weren’t run by people. Unfortunately Catholic bishops and Steve Jobs have a long way to go before solving those problems, so we have an imperfect government.

Shit.

When a government is corrupt, unfairness must result. This is an unfairness of the most fundamental effect – an unfairness that, because of the government’s breadth and power can change or end one’s freedom, one’s opportunity or ability to function in society, or one’s very life. This is an easy thing to hear and accept when it’s a Kevin Costner movie, but probably not so easy to deal with when it is you that some selfish or mad agent of the government has decided needs to go to jail or die. Imagine what is effectively the government deciding that you will suffer an injustice. Imagine how hopeless you would feel and your knowledge and belief that what you were enduring was not just mean, inconvenient, or painful but truly wrong in a global sense.

(For the record, this is why I am now opposed to the death penalty from a governmental standpoint)

How are we to avoid absolute power? Well, the traditional argument is that we do so by election. This is somewhat true – with regular elections we avoid that power’s permanence. But this has never managed to prevent congress from giving itself pay raises, or a president’s pardoning his own brother or the “crooked” ex-president from his own party. Unfortunately, elections are not won on a term-long record, rather they are won on well-timed moves and effective spin. Anyone who cries that recalls are the answer to this has never tried to get a county commissioner recalled, much less a federal official. Election can not prevent absolute power in non-election years.

In my experiences with the band, we have struggled with many big decisions. The discussion surrounding the most controversial of those often revolved around “how the band would take” a given decision. In other words, if we made a profoundly unpopular decision, how many people would walk? Would they revolt by standing on the field and refusing to play at pregame? We rarely, but occasionally had to consider whether or not a decision would be so unpopular as to make us powerless by way of overthrow.

I believe this is what the founders intended with the second amendment. I believe that they desired to keep the government honest by way of the remote but real threat of its own destruction. Hell, they knew about the power of guns and a few overtaxed colonists. The way they overcame the oppression of the Brits was by overthrow, and they knew that the presence of this possibility was an effective method of preventing oppression (at home at least) by the government (whether the oppressed was an individual or a “sovereign state”).

In other words, there is a necessary level of conflict between a free people and her government – a level of conflict which facilitates the checking of the government by the governed and vice versa. Unfortunately, conflict results in discomfort, lack of ease, the occasional bruise, and yes, death. Ask Amadou Diallo. You can’t.

This level of conflict works on multiple levels. The government itself avoids overthrow by tempering its more harsh instincts or necessities in favor of a palatable alternative. The government agent avoids being destroyed by respecting that each individual is capable of defending herself from the government. Yes, it also results in hardship. Police officers have to exercise a frightened and uncomfortable caution when they approach citizens. While I know this makes keeping the peace difficult, I personally prefer this to a world in which officers walk up to anyone and tell them what to do with no justification, or worse force them to do something with no regard for their rights (I know that courts are supposed to prevent this, but they often only “prevent” things after they have happened.).

The only way this conflict is effective is if the people are physically capable of defending themselves against their government, both individually and collectively, just as the government is capable of defending itself against its people. In order for this to be possible, the people must have access to the same weapons as their government.

Now, that is obviously impossible on a mass level. Sorry, you dumbass militias out there, but you ain’t gettin’ you no Howitzer no time soon, bubba. Not to mention the fact that no bunch of redneck gun-toters is going to overthrow the IGA on Poplar and Main, much less the federal government. That’s stupid.

But a citizen’s having access to the same weaponry that the beat cop in the neighborhood has is pretty good insurance against Lt. Coaltrain deciding he needs some man-love on a slow day. Sorry, but if I were the one pursued in that case, I would shoot first and ask questions later. That threat is theoretically what prevents that Beatty-esque pervert from exercising his sick, twisted, but unfortunately absolute power over me.

I think it completely sucks that guns are used to kill innocent people. I think it is horrendous that a kid can take a weapon into a school and kill himself and his classmates because his girlfriend isn’t ready or he failed to save his game of Halo 2. I think that judge, and that court reporter, and those cops served nobly and most certainly didn’t deserve to die for what were most likely very thankless jobs.

But I think I would care for the alternative far less. Better the thug to kill a few in a futile attempt at freedom than the omnipotent to kill the masses because they don’t fit “the profile."

For better or for worse, this country didn’t develop out of peace and love. It developed out of restlessness and anger at an oppressive government that was put into action with endurance, ruggedness, and guns. The government won’t be giving up its guns, and in order to avoid absolute power, I suspect that the people won’t be either.

I do believe that most people are fundamentally good, and that the most responsible governors respect citizenship and seek to avoid unchecked government power. Those aren't the people from whom this insurance policy protects the people. The problems of the world rarely result from the good.

I am opposed to gun control which would tip the balance of power so far away from the people that the government could become unmanageably oppressive. In other words, if the government can use those weapons against her people, then a justice that embraces neither over the other should not prohibit the people from defending themselves from their government.

You might think I’m crazy. You should hear me when I’m drunk.