The true
significance of the 3D-printed gun is the "democratization" of gun
manufacturing. Now all the equipment you need is a 3D printer and the skills
required to operate it.
"But
if you're going to download a blueprint for a plastic weapon that can be brought
onto an airplane, there's a penalty to be paid."
That
doesn't even begin to make sense. Hijacking aircraft is already illegal. A
hijacker, particularly if he's a suicidal religious fanatic, isn't going to be
deterred by an additional gun charge.
Over at the
Huffington
Post, the assorted fascists, commies, gun control freaks, and other
intellectual bottom feeders creeping around there are huffing and frothing at
their mouths. But just that they don't like reality doesn't change it.
"This
elegant statement of purpose [the Preamble to the US Constitution] confirms
that our Founders saw a more energetic, more capable federal government as the
best possible guarantor of individual rights."
Only that
this government turned out to be the most vicious destroyer of individual
rights. Apparently, the huffy poster is unable to distinguish between
individual rights and the will (the tyranny) of the majority.
"He
prefers an anarchical society where government lacks the ability not only to
accomplish great things, but also to do the mundane, like ensuring that
judgments are enforced and laws executed."
Let me take
Israel's nonsense statement and turn it around into something meaningful:
We're all
for enforcing (Anarcho-Capitalist) laws against true crime. But if you're going
to raid someone's house to steal his books, computers, and weed, to lock him
into a cage, and to murder him if he tries to defend himself, there's a penalty
to be paid.
If
everybody has a gun, no organization, be it a fascist state or an
Anarcho-Capitalist corporation gone rogue, can afford to enforce laws against
victimless "crimes." Neither fascist pigs nor Anarcho-Capitalist
security guards will be at all eager to enforce contempt of cop on even the
lowliest individual.
The case of
3D-printed guns proves two popular antifascist writers, George Orwell and Ayn
Rand, wrong.
In
1984, Orwell painted the dystopian picture of an omnipotent
state enslaving its subjects through technology. Now we see that technology is
not the evil tool of the fascist state.
At worst,
technology is morally neutral, neither good nor bad, its moral worth depending
on which party uses it, the state or the freedom fighters. At best, however,
technology is so disruptive that, once genie is out of the bottle, it reduces
any organized monopoly government ad absurdum.
Murray
Rothbard correctly stated that:
"Capitalism
is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression
of capitalism."
Which, as
this case demonstrates, can be turned into this corollary:
Technology
is the fullest expression of anarchy, and anarchy is the fullest expression of
technology.
Advanced
technology makes totalitarian rule impossible, and the absence of pointless
regulations allows more technological progress.
Rand
believed that anarchy would result in the rule of brute force, and consequently
fantasized about how to keep some hypothetical "limited government"
limited. Now we see that anarchy is not the rule of brute force, but of force
controlled by the mind.
Anarchy is
the "rule," for lack of a better word, of those who can operate 3D
printers. Not the rule of decrepit old men like Chuck E. Cheese, who cannot
tell the "intertubes" from their feeding tubes, old men who love
nothing better than to at the drop of a hat make laws to kidnap and murder
random individuals who never harmed anyone.
If you want
to wrap your mind around how far the lunacy of the government toadies goes,
look at this huffy poster contradiction:
"The
concept of a government 'monopoly on force' may sound inconsistent with the
political traditions of a country steeped in stories of its own revolution, but
it is the fundamental organizing principle of any
nation-state."
Versus
"We
don't know if the project will be producing serviceable handguns and assault
rifles anytime soon, but if it does — and if these weapons avoid regulation —
political violence could one day replace political dialogue as the hallmark of
our democratic system."
In the
first quote the gun control freak extols the state's monopoly on force. In the
second quote he condemns political violence.
But what is
the state's monopoly on force, if not political violence, political violence
perpetrated by the majority to enforce its will on the minority? Looks like
political violence is fine with freaky-boy as long as it has been rubberstamped
by the majority.
Majority
tyranny, democracy, is fine and dandy for him. Looks like he expects to always
have a leftist majority to back him up.
But be
careful, freaky-boy. A government that is powerful enough to give you anything
you want is also powerful enough to take away everything you have. I dare say
that if your authoritarian government turns on you, saving an authoritarian
like you from death row will be the lowest of the low priorities for any
anarchist.
You dirty
fascists, commies, conservatives, and socialists. Your government stole our
herbs, guns, and books it didn't approve of, locked us in cages, and murdered
us. When we complained, you basically told us to go fly a kite.
Now liberty
and anarchy is coming to you, and you don't like it one bit. You complain to
us.
You know
what? Go fly a kite.
Anarchy is
the way of the future. Better get used to it.
The shot
heard 'round the world.
Posts
