GUNS FOR GOODNESS SAKE

© 2001 by Robert E. Podolsky

Introduction

Should guns only be permitted in the hands of special people?  Should every gun in the world be found and destroyed, so no one has guns?  What would be the most ethical way for today’s decision makers, influential individuals, and power groups to align themselves?  What can the law ethically do to make the world a better, safer, more habitable place in which to live?  What other institutions than the law might properly be involved?

Rather than asserting answers to these questions on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, which would simply sort my readers into those who think, “I agree” and those who think, “I don’t agree”, I prefer to establish a basis for agreement at the outset by defining the ethical criteria to be imposed, and then using simple logic to derive the answers to the questions posed.  In this way we may be able to achieve a better mutual understanding of the issues involved.  Finally, when I reach the end of this process and some of us disagree again, we will have a structure in place that lets us examine exactly how we disagree; to determine which ethical definition or step in my logic is actually the point of disagreement.

Basic Ethics

All systems of ethics begin with an arbitrary definition of what is “good”; that which the ethic seeks to maximize.  Before offering a definition I point out that the arbitrary nature of the definition that defines an ethic does not imply that all ethics are equally valid.  In the Soviet Union, for example, the primary value of the prevailing ethic was the maximization of material well being for everyone.  The result was the creation of universal poverty.  The founders of the United States sought to maximize personal freedom.  Since the framing of the Constitution we have enjoyed less personal freedom each year but two (see Book 2) than we had the year before.  Many churches and religious organizations have preached for millennia that the highest value should be faith in the revealed word of God.  Yet those who have adopted this ethic have perpetrated an unending series of wars, pogroms, witch-hunts, crusades, jihads, and inquisitions encompassing murder, rape, slavery, torture, exploitation, and genocide.  While few would argue that material well being, freedom, and faith in one’s ethic are not necessary for humans to thrive, it is a telling fact that an ethic whose adoption creates the opposite effect from the desired outcome is not a very good ethic…. certainly not a valid ethic.

Over the many years that I have sought to find valid ethics, I have found only one whose adoption does not ultimately create its own opposite.  This one has been tried in many settings and has consistently created the results that it seeks to maximize.  So I offer it here for your approval:

Definition: A good act is one which increases access to objective truth and its logical equivalents for at least one person (including the one performing the act) and which neither limits nor reduces any person’s access to objective truth.

For clarification we should note that:

1.   Only actions are subject to ethical evaluation, not people.
2.   Objective truth is truth that is independently verifiable as scientific truth is.
3.   The logical equivalents of objective truth are those other resources that are increased when objective truth is increased and decreased when objective truth is decreased.  Logically equivalent resources to objective truth also have the property that if the availability of one of them is increased or decreased the availability of objective truth is correspondingly increased or decreased. Awareness, creativity, love, and evolution are but a few of the resources logically equivalent to objective truth.
4.   A person is a being that has awareness of its awareness.  Besides humans, this definition probably includes great apes, and cetaceans (whales and dolphins).
5.   And finally, children and animals are not fully aware of their awareness, if at all; and are therefore exempt from moral or ethical judgment.

Before we go any further look back at the definition of an ethical act and see if there is anything there with which you disagree.  To date the only part of the definition to which anyone we have met seems to disagree is the last part; the part that says an act that harms anyone cannot be ethical.  Let’s go back to our discussion of the criteria by which we judge the validity of an ethic.  Every ethic that we know of that omits this last clause produces results that are the opposite of what the ethic ostensibly seeks to create.  This is in fact the reason that every government on our planet acts unethically much of the time.  Without this stricture one comes to believe that ethical ends can be reached by unethical means.  (See Appendix B of The BORG WARS Humanity… What Went Wrong to see three independent proofs that this supposition is false.) History shows us the fallacy of this belief.  Every unethical act that is perpetrated in the belief that it somehow serves “the greater good” or “the benefit of the many” invariably produces much more harm than good.  We therefore reject that false belief and include the restriction that the end does not justify the means.  I hope you can see the validity of this choice.

Action vs. Inaction

Clearly we can see from the definition of an ethical act that in order to live ethically we must constantly strive to act in ways that maximize truth, love, awareness, evolution, creativity, and all other logical equivalents of objective truth.  It follows logically that in dealing with persons who insist on behaving destructively it is unethical to remain passive and permit the unethical behavior to continue.  As the old adage says, “For evil to triumph it is only necessary for good men to do nothing.”  This is not to say that in dealing with destructive behavior we should put ourselves at risk; but rather that to the extent that we can do so while avoiding unnecessary risk we are ethically obliged to intervene.  Note that our definition prescribes an ethical continuum on which the midpoint (zero) is the behavior that is neutral, neither destructive nor creative.  Destructive (unethical) behavior is in varying degrees characterized by negative creativity and ethical behavior is characterized by positive creativity.

Use of Force

When faced with someone who is behaving destructively, therefore, we are ethically obliged, to the extent that considerations of our personal safety allow, to take action that will limit, reduce, or terminate the destructive behavior in question.  In this regard we must of course consider the seriousness of the destructive behavior in question in deciding how far to go in using force to intervene.  We wouldn’t use lethal force to stop someone from ignoring their parking tickets.  But we might lock up their vehicle as a means of persuading them to attend to their legal obligations.

To intervene ethically we must use the least harmful method that is available and effective.  If a disapproving look will do the job, that is as much force as we should use.  If a look is not effective we may have to resort to persuasion, reason, or stern words.  If words are not effective we may be able to resort to the law, which of course implies the threat of coercion by force.  If the law or the threat of the law is not effective, the use of physical coercion is appropriate.  If we can simply restrain the individual without hurting them, then that is the best choice.  If we cannot do that effectively it is ethical to inflict pain to distract them from their chosen course of action.  While we hope to be able to do this without causing them injury, that may not be possible.  If not, we may have to injure or maim them to stop them.  If lesser physical injury won’t suffice, and if the individual’s destructive behavior may have lethal or near-lethal consequences to someone, it may be necessary to use a level of force that may be lethal to them.  In any case, the point is to use just enough force to stop the destructive behavior from occurring or continuing.

Self-Defense

If the destructive behavior of another person is directed at one’s self there are sometimes other options available.  Compliance with the other’s wishes may suffice, but not always.  Running away from the aggressor may be a viable option; or sometimes just walking away.  The ethical obligation to defend one’s self is no less applicable than the need to defend others.

The Ethics of Lethal Force

At this point many would balk and say, “Wait a minute.  How can the use of lethal force be ethical if it results in someone’s death?  Hasn’t the dead attacker’s creativity been reduced to zero?  Doesn’t that violate the definition of an ethical act?”

No, it hasn’t and it doesn’t.  Remember, the creativity “scale” includes both positive and negative values.  Destructive behavior is on the negative end of the scale.  If we have to use lethal force to prevent lethal damage from being done to someone, we have not reduced the perpetrator’s creativity to zero; we have raised it to zero.  Therefore we have both preserved the positive creativity of the person whom we protected and improved the creativity level of someone who was bent on highly destructive behavior.  Nothing could be more ethical under the circumstances.  To act otherwise under the circumstances would be unethical.

Who Should Have Guns?

Now we are ready to address the issue of who should have guns and whether they should be banned.  To do this let’s go back to the question of what resources increase people’s creativity, access to truth, etc.  Certainly freedom is one of the resources that enhance creativity.  And as a society, if we are to act ethically, we want to deny people access to resources that will be used destructively.  So if we are to act ethically as a society we must find ways to keep guns out of the hands of felons without abrogating the freedom of those who are law abiding citizens.  If, in the name of law and order, we deny the freedom to use guns to people who are not acting destructively and whom we have no reason to believe will use them in destructive acts, then we are violating the basic definition of an ethical act.

Remember, it is only ethical to infringe on people’s freedoms when we are at least reasonably sure that those same people will use their freedom destructively.  To abrogate someone’s freedom when they are not acting or about to act destructively is to diminish their creativity, truth, love, etc.  To claim otherwise is to insist that ethical ends can be reached by unethical means; which we know from the above discussion is contrary to the basic logic of ethics.

It is our observation that we can intuit the same conclusion by noting that banning anything (drugs, alcohol, pornography, etc.) has never been successful in curbing the harm done by people who abuse or misuse their access to the item that has been banned.  Remember the Mafia was just a bunch of street gangs until we banned liquor.  By doing so we created a great evil.  We have so similarly today by prohibiting drugs.

The usual argument raised to contradict this conclusion is to point out that in some societies where guns have been banned there are very few shootings.  In England, for instance, where guns are only available legally to the police (and yes they do use guns although not all police carry guns) the incidence of gun violence is very low.  The truth of this statement, however, does not mean that because guns are banned in England that therefore gun violence is less prevalent than here.  England has always been a very civilized society.  For centuries British criminals saw no reason to carry guns; so the police could function adequately without them.  The British culture is very different from ours.  In fact there is no evidence that we know of that indicates a cause and effect relationship between the British gun ban and the lower incidence of homicides involving guns.  In fact the low incidence of violent crime in England existed for centuries before the gun ban went into effect.  The same reasoning appears to us to apply to the other countries where guns have been banned and shooting crimes are infrequent.

Still another factor to consider concerning the banning of guns is the tendency of government to try to bring about social change by methods that don’t work.  The “war on drugs” is a case in point; whereby the harmful effects of drug addiction were to be ameliorated by banning drugs.  The effect of this intervention was that the drug trade became more profitable and drugs became more available; hence more addiction.  It doesn’t take a genius to realize that if banning drugs increases the problem, perhaps relaxing the prohibition would lessen the problem.  It worked for alcohol; why not drugs.  But instead of attempting a new experiment based on this realization, the government has simply escalated the war on drugs making them an even more valuable commodity, and the drug problem has predictably gotten still worse.

From a psychological perspective, we know from prison interviews that violent criminals such as muggers and hold-up artists always seek targets of opportunity that are as defenseless as possible.  Old people, disabled folks in wheel chairs, and young innocents who don’t pay attention to their surroundings: these are the favored targets of the violent criminal.  If you were a violent criminal with a preference for helpless victims, wouldn’t you rather do business in L.A. or DC where the law abiding citizen is always unarmed than in Eugene, Oregon where muggers occasionally get shot by their intended victim?  Criminals are a pretty stupid lot; but not too stupid to know that banning guns makes their job easier.  They can always get guns.  If banning guns makes their lot easier aren’t we stupid to disarm the law-abiding citizen?[1]

Finally, no one would deny that it would really be a blessing if we lived in a society where there was no gun violence; or for that matter no violence of any kind.  If there were no violence in people’s hearts it would certainly be a better world.  But to think we can somehow bring about that better world by banning guns is to misunderstand the most fundamental cause and effect relationships that make the world what it is today.  Banning guns can only make the world a more dangerous place for the law-abiding citizen to live.  If banning guns prevents a hundred people with poor impulse control from killing some relative or neighbor whom they hate, it will allow a thousand felons to have their way with the victims whom the gun ban makes defenseless.   So, few evils are greater than the universal banning of guns from the hands of the public.

THE TITANIAN LAW PROJECT
A SPECIAL MESSAGE TO LEGISLATORS, JUDGES, ATTORNEYS,
PARALEGALS, AND BOTH FORMAL AND INFORMAL STUDENTS OF THE LAW

When government by law was first invented, eight thousand years ago in Sumer, the basis of law (and hence government itself) was “might makes right”. The kings and tribal chieftains who could afford to field armies saw it was to their advantage to form a power-brokerage cartel to manage their shared monopoly of power over their neighbors. The mechanism that they invented to accomplish this feat, we know today as hierarchy. It is the central feature of almost all our institutions today, including those of Business, Organized Religion, and Government (BORG).

Today it is generally understood, at least in the developed western world, that the “might” of military and police forces does not, in fact, confer the “right”, upon those who wield such coercive power, to command the lives of those who lack these powers. Accordingly, most of the world’s governments give lip-service to the notion that they exist to serve the interests of those whom they govern.  And indeed, in an ethical human society, this concept would represent reality.

Unfortunately, for most of the people of the world, government that serves the interests of the public is just a myth, perpetuated by those who use the lie to facilitate their manipulation of those less resourceful than themselves. By believing the lie we permit our own enslavement.

In reality the nature of government has not changed since the days of Sumer.  It remains a power-brokerage cartel that truly serves only its own interests:

• Maximization of its members’ profits,
• Maximization of its powers of coercion, and
• Stabilization of its monopoly role in the power-brokerage marketplace.

The rest of society, with few and insignificant exceptions, complies with the demands of government, even to the extent of mirroring one of its worst features, the use of hierarchy as a mechanism for power-brokerage, within the structures of virtually all our institutions, both public and private.

Thus it is that humanity today labors under the burden of a vast parasite, which, left unchecked, will do what all parasites do: it will destroy its host, even though its own survival depends upon the health of its host.  Today the parasite of government has the power to turn our entire planet into a radioactive cinder, unfit to sustain any kind of life as we know it.  As things stand now, it is likely to do this.

But maybe it’s not too late. Maybe, by using HoloMatic institutions comprised of ethical Octologues, we can pull ourselves back from the brink of disaster and transform human society into a sustainable thriving whole.

Whether you are a legislator, a judge (active or retired), an attorney (practicing or not), a paralegal, or merely a justice-minded law student, your participation in the development of Titania, your personal effort, your creativity could be crucial to the future of humanity itself.

To understand what is needed, let’s take a quick look at what is wrong with our current legal systems.  Such systems today, the world over, are prone to the following obvious flaws, foibles, or weaknesses:

1. Many laws forbid ethical acts.
2. Many laws require unethical acts.
3. Many laws take money, property, financial opportunity, privacy, or freedom away from those to whom it belongs and bestow it upon those to whom it does not belong.
4. Many laws, regardless of their merit, are passed by legislators to curry favor with voters or with the lobbyists who pay for their election campaigns.
5. Many laws continue to be enforced long after it is obvious that they do not produce the behavioral results that they were intended to produce – or even when they produce the opposite effects.
6. Many laws are passed and enforced in the name of “protecting the public” when, in fact, they primarily serve to give a group of influential people protection against the market encroachment of another, less influential, group of people. In this the public is the loser.
7. Many judges openly forbid jurors from considering the merits or legitimacy of the laws being enforced in their courtrooms. This serves to bureaucratize the legal system by immunizing it against corrective feedback. In this case everyone is the loser.
8. To be legitimate, by modern standards, a law must serve the best interests of the people – all the people – who are supposedly being protected by the law. When this principle is violated, the resulting law is not legitimate and cannot be ethically enforced.
9. Enactment of a law is, by its nature, a delegation of authority from the legislators enacting the law to the legislative body that those individual legislators comprise. When a group of legislators enact a law that delegates authority that those legislators do not possess as individuals, the resulting law is not legitimate and cannot be ethically enforced.
10. Mindful of the fact that governments are power-brokerage cartels whose true purposes are purely self-serving, it is clear that laws that support and/or enforce the true purposes of government are never ethical. The vast majority of laws in the world today fall into this category.

From the foregoing description of the “Foibles” of government-enacted law, and from what we have shown elsewhere in this website concerning the E₊ Ethic and the “Comforting Lies”, we can draw the following logical conclusions, which comprise some of the principles of just law:

1. Government, as we know it, is incapable of enacting and/or enforcing just (ethical) laws.
2. Political systems, at best, determine who gets to participate in the power-brokerage cartels that we call “governments”; but nothing in any political process enables the people governed to alter the unethical nature of government. Majority Rule contributes to this fact.
3. For a society to thrive it must have a legal system that is entirely independent of government.
4. Such a legal system must be privately funded and privately operated by a group of people committed to the principles of just (ethical) law.
5. Just laws must be enacted solely to serve the ends defined by the E₊ Ethic or an alternative ethic that is the logical equivalent of the E₊ Ethic, and must be further be constrained to embody the principle that ethical ends can only be achieved by means that are ethical ends in themselves.
6. Any law, rule, regulation, or procedure sanctioned by the Bill of Ethics qualifies as an artifact or embodiment of just law.
7. Any law, rule, regulation, or procedure not sanctioned by the Bill of Ethics is not an artifact or embodiment of just law.
8. For a society to thrive, its unjust laws and the rules, regulations, and procedures that support and enforce them must be repealed.
9. The exercise of (coercive) power over others is never ethical except  in the case of the defense of self or others against unethical acts – and then only when all available non-coercive means have failed – and even then limited to the application of the minimum amount of coercive force required to prevent further occurrence of the unethical act or to provide redress of the harm done by the unethical act or acts already perpetrated.

It is the intention of Titania to create and operate an alternative legal system to which the public can turn for the arbitration of conflicts, the redress of grievances, and the establishment and enforcement of just laws. To that end:

1. The Titanian Legal System (TLS) will be built upon the definitions and principles provided by the Bill of Ethics.
2. The TLS will be privately owned and operated, entirely independent of government, and will be funded entirely by voluntary payment of service fees and subscriptions by persons wishing to avail themselves of the services afforded by the TLS.
3. Organizational elements of the TLS will be structured as HoloMats of Octologues according to the definitions provided by the Constitution of Titania.
4. Over time, and as its means permit, the TLS will define and codify just law in the fields of contracts, business, torts, the environment, and criminal law.
5. On the same basis, the TLS will offer services that may include, but not be limited to the following:

a.Mediation,
b. Arbitration,
c.Education,
d. Consultation,
e. Expert testimony,

f.  Judicial services,

1. Defense of persons unjustly accused of criminal charges under government-enacted laws in government courts.
2. The writing of legal briefs arguing for the repeal of unjust laws and the redress of grievances for persons against whom unjust laws have been enforced.
3.  Development of a system of legal defenses against the enforcement of any and all laws providing for the practice of taxation by government at all levels.

If you understand the foregoing and are prepared to make a significant investment in bringing the TLS to reality, then you may be in a position to “play” in the Titanian “Legal Sandbox”.

Now let’s consider some of the other ways you can PARTICIPATE IN TITANIA.

THE WAR ON DRUGS IS OVER!!  …or IS IT?

by BOB PODOLSKY

Bad News is Not News

Titanians have long maintained that the drug-war (often called the “war on drugs”) is one of our government’s more egregious ethical faux pas, and that it contributes, as much as any other government-sponsored war, to the de-legitimizing of our government. As did its progenitor, alcohol prohibition, the drug-war violates the principle that individual people own their bodies and have the innate right to do whatever they wish to do to their own bodies – whether by means of drugs or otherwise. Legislative edicts that violate this principle constitute instances of forbidding mala prohibita, laws that don’t exist to protect people from one another; but only to impose the will of one group of people upon another. Such edicts are grossly unethical; and their enforcement constitutes mala in se, which are real crimes against persons.

Unintended Consequences – Perhaps
The drug-war has become inextricably entwined with the so-called “war on terror”. What are the government-stated purposes of these wars?

• The reduction of drug addiction, and “associated” crimes of violence – and
• The reduction of terror and concomitant increase in personal security.

The results:

• The continual increase in drug use and addiction,
• The dramatic increase in “associated” crimes of violence,
• The dramatic increase in the level of terror experienced by most people,
• The dramatic increase in police brutality to innocents,
• The dramatic increase in government invasion of individuals’ privacy,
• The dramatic increase in court rulings that conflict with established laws and that exonerate the real perpetrators in the instances listed above, and
• The dramatic increase in the bogus imprisonment of people who should be pitied, rather than punished, and
• The dramatic increase in the enormous population of innocent people whose lives and careers have been destroyed due to the prejudicial stigma attached to prosecution under drug-war edicts – together with
• The dramatic increase in the publicly-borne costs associated with the above results.

What are we to make of these results – which are clearly the exact opposite of the stated intentions? The most charitable interpretation is that government is incompetent to address the real problems, and, blind and deaf to the obvious feedback, continues to do what obviously doesn’t work.

Another interpretation is that the “government-stated intentions” are false – and that the actual results are precisely in line with the real (secret) intentions of those who’ve created these putative wars. Many believe this is far-fetched. Consider the following: vast fortunes are being made –

• in the security and surveillance industries,
• in the intelligence industry,
• in the law enforcement industry,
• in the property confiscation industry
• in the “justice system” industry,
• in the “penal system” industry, and
• in the “illicit drug” industry itself – which wouldn’t even exist, were it not for the prohibition against drugs!

Doesn’t it make sense to identify real intentions by noting who makes money from the real results that ensue from the real actions, putatively based on the stated intentions that gave credence thereto.

Some Good News – at Last
Putting aside, for the moment, the discussion of intentions vs. realities, consider the significance of recent legal precedents to the effect that the Drug-War is Over – at least in principle.

Here’s how this came about. Over 10,000 years ago, Native Americans in both North and South America began using natural herbs sometimes known as “Teaching Plants” in their spiritual and healing ceremonies.  These teaching plants could be marijuana (cannabis), mushrooms (psilocybin), tobacco (nicotine), peyote (mescaline) or Ayahuasca (dmt).  In Native American spirituality, ALL plants are sacred!  In this country, Native Americans in the Southwest focused primarily on the use of peyote. As Europeans came to this  continent and began to exterminate the Native American population, a central feature of this effort was directed at destroying the culture of Native Americans. In many ways this effort continues to this day.

However, despite many failed treaties and betrayed agreements, and despite the largely successful efforts to suppress Native American culture and traditions, the culture and traditions have survived; and, most importantly, so have a few of the treaties and a few of the laws that were put in place to protect Native Americans. Based on these few laws, recent legal precedents (see the link at the end of this article) have established two vital principles:

• Legitimate members of the Native American Church (NAC) have the right under law to use any natural herbs they wish in their spiritual observances – and are exempt from legislation at any level of U.S. Government forbidding the use, possession, transportation, or transmittal of such substances. And –
• The Native American Church has the right (and the wish) to welcome people of any race into their membership – the government not having the right to force NAC to discriminate in its membership criteria by race.¹

A further feature of the above-mentioned precedents is that existing law now prescribes severe punishments for any person who, under color of law violates the aforesaid rights – and this includes law-enforcement personnel, court justices, and anyone else who arrests, prosecutes, or in any way abuses a member of NAC. Besides creating criminal sanctions against such behavior, this opens the door for such perpetrators to be held liable for civil proceedings against them.

My congratulations to the Utah-based Oklevueha Native American Church (ONAC) – and James Flaming Eagle Mooney, whose diligent and persevering efforts and sacrifices have made possible this historical turning point! ONAC is truly a champion of our rights.

Now the Really Great News
Surely you know that you are at risk if someone in your presence, unbeknown to you perhaps (or you yourself, of course), is carrying an ounce of marijuana, a gram of hash, a “magic” mushroom, or a pinch of peyote. When you and your companion encounter a “law-enforcement official”, of whatever variety, you could be arrested, prosecuted, fined, jailed, and your multi-million-dollar career ended abruptly. These days, this happens all the time. BUT you could have a “leg to stand on” by becoming a member of ONAC. For a donation to ONAC of just $100, you can be carrying an official ONAC membership card that legally entitles you to the governmental respect defined by the principles outlined above.

About Carrying the ONAC Authorized Participation Card

As indicated above, this is a “leg-to-stand-on” card – it is not a “get-out-of-jail-free” card. Until its meaning and significance become widely known in the law enforcement community, the Attorney Generals’ offices, and in the courtrooms, it is unlikely to command instant respect from the minions of such organizations – so you would be wise not to expect it. This is especially true in light of the huge fortunes (alluded to above) that are being made as a result of the putative “laws” that support drug prohibition. The folks making those fortunes are not going to be happy to hear that their reign of terror has now been outlawed.

$100 is a great investment to have a valid leg to stand on, when confronting the putative authorities. This is especially so when you consider that your future earnings as a professional, in whatever field, could be at stake in the outcome. Nowhere else can you get “insurance” against the plausible eventuality that can overtake you at any time. So I heartily recommend the investment. ²

There you have it! – The bad news and the good news. So go get yourself a Oklevueha Native American Church member card right now!

AND for those who would like to become an affiliate of our marketing arm, and to receive commissions by helping others flex their rights go to http://the-drug-war-is-over.org .

It is obvious that government atrocities are legion. A whole library could be devoted to them. We’ve just mentioned three of particular interest. So let’s start thinking about the solution to the Big Problem. To do this we need to discuss the Ethics.

Oklevueha Native American Church

Indigenous People’s Spirituality

Due Diligence and Legal Precedents

Interview With James Flaming Eagle Mooney

[1] The foregoing and the comments that follow represent my personal understanding of the significance of the recent legal precedents– and to be construed for “entertainment purposes only” not as “legal advice”.

^[2] In the interests of transparency, we should also note that when you take advantage of the Oklevueha Native American Church (ONAC) Authorized Participant (AP) Card following one of the links above, Titania will receive a small, but much-needed, referral commission.