Scunthorpe police encourage householders to beat burglars

The headline, Police in Scunthorpe offer advice on beating burglars, sounds a lot more promising than it actually is. The days being long gone since we had the same rights as our American cousins to keep and bear arms in our own self-preservation and defence (to quote Sir William Blackstone), the usual advice from the police is to be a willing victim, and have a little sympathy for the criminal aggressor, he probably came from a broken home.

True to form, the ‘beating’ which Scunthorpe police are referring to is not to be dished out with an iron bar repeatedly to the cranium, but rather that furnished by ensuring every door and window is permanently locked, even the one in the smallest room. This, we are confidently informed, will minimise the risk that we fall prey to the predators.

A friend of mine was very recently burgled. I suggested she went onto YouTube and searched for ‘woman shoots intruder’ to cheer herself up with one of the many examples of when the private ownership of firearms is used to good effect. She wasn’t too impressed, as the thieving scum had made off with her computer. Anyway she’s not much of a gun person, seeing castration with a rusty knife the more appropriate response. I wouldn’t go that far myself, but hey. Her house, her rules.

Frank Chodorov once wrote on the subject of taxation:

If we assume that the individual has an indisputable right to life, we must concede that he has a similar right to the enjoyment of the products of his labor. This we call a property right. The absolute right to property follows from the original right to life because one without the other is meaningless; the means to life must be identified with life itself.

Out of Step pg 217 ‘Taxation is Robbery

Applying the logic found in this statement, the laws prohibiting the private ownership of firearms for self-defence are clearly an affront to our liberty.  Whatever the government declares in favour of our inalienable right to self-defence is meaningless, as long as it denies us the means to exercise it.

One Comment

  1. Laws prohibiting firearm ownership are just one example of the government’s preemptive approach to harm – ie, rather than ensure that harm is redressed by restitution or punishment, the government tries to prevent harm from happening in the first place.

    This preemptive approach is profoundly flawed in many ways. We are all treated as probable criminals. We are trained to ask the government whenever there is a possible harm to be prevented, rather than just take action ourselves. There is a huge enforcement cost. The same principle is applied overseas to justify invasions of countries that don’t possibly have the ability to harm the UK. And because it is not possible to prevent all harm, and so harm keeps happening, there is a constant pressure to make government bigger in the vain hope that harm could be prevented by a more powerful government.

    Libertarians should point out the flaws in the preemptive approach and seek to restore a reactive approach to harm in which only actual harm was punished. Under such an approach, insurers would set binding rules for preventive actions their customers would have to take in order to qualify for payouts to those who suffered the consequences of inadvertently-caused harm, and public interest groups would provide non-binding guidelines for those (the vast majority) who wish to avoid causing harm and appreciate advice about how to do so.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s