Has Anyone Actually Bothered To Read "All The Way"
Discussion
Has anyone actually bothered to read:
"All The Way Down The Slippery Slope: Gun Prohibition In England And Some Lessons For Civil Liberties In America"
And for those who have, have they got as far as the first line of the introduction:
"Is it possible for a nation to go from wide-open freedom for a civil liberty, to near-total destruction of that liberty, in just a few decades?"
Which clarifies what it's all about for those who missed the second half of the title and were put off by the first half.
For those still struggling to grasp what the article is about, the rest of the first three paragraphs read:
"Yes," warn many American civil libertarians, arguing that allegedly "reasonable" restrictions on civil liberty today will start the nation down "the slippery slope" to severe repression in the future.[3] In response, proponents of today's reasonable restrictions argue that the jeremiads about slippery slopes are unrealistic or even paranoid.[4]
This Essay aims to refine the understanding of slippery slopes by examining a particular nation that did slide all the way down the slippery slope.(p.400) When the twentieth century began, the right to arms in Great Britain was robust, and subject to virtually no restrictions. As the century closes, the right has been almost obliterated. In studying the destruction of the British right to arms, this Essay draws conclusions about how slippery slopes operate in real life, and about what kinds of conditions increase or decrease the risk that the first steps down a hill will turn into a slide down a slippery slope.
For purposes of this Essay, the reader will not be asked to make a judgement about the righteousness of the (former) British right to arms or the wisdom of current British gun prohibitions and controls. Instead, the object is simply to examine how a right that is widely respected and unrestricted can, one "reasonable" step at a time, be extinguished. This Essay pays particular attention to how the public's "rights consciousness," which forms such a strong barrier against repressive laws, can weaken and then disappear. The investigation of the British experience offers some insights about the current gun control debate in the United States, and also about ongoing debates over other civil liberties. This Essay does not require that the reader have any affection for the British right to arms; presumably, the reader does have affection for some civil liberties, and the Essay aims to discover principles about how slippery slopes operate. These principles can be applied to any debate where slippery slopes are an issue.
In a nutshell the "liberals" won because they didn't fight amongst themselves, and attacked the opposition with all they had.
Whereas the firearms owners sold each other down the river and ended up up the creek without a paddle.
I have been accused of:
"battering the crap out of everybody who holds a different view (even, in some cases, if the view is only slightly different) endears many people to your cause."
I beg to differ.
I batter the crap out of everybody who is giving an inch.
The "liberals" only need a few of you to do that and they don't need to take a mile: you've given it to them.
Oh, and this isn't just about cars:
It's about the society you are going to end up living in.
And the one your kids are going to inherit.
Read the article and weep:
Substitute cars for guns and it could be describing the politics of motoring.
And unfortunately you can substitute anything you want for cars and it still rings true.
"All The Way Down The Slippery Slope: Gun Prohibition In England And Some Lessons For Civil Liberties In America"
And for those who have, have they got as far as the first line of the introduction:
"Is it possible for a nation to go from wide-open freedom for a civil liberty, to near-total destruction of that liberty, in just a few decades?"
Which clarifies what it's all about for those who missed the second half of the title and were put off by the first half.
For those still struggling to grasp what the article is about, the rest of the first three paragraphs read:
"Yes," warn many American civil libertarians, arguing that allegedly "reasonable" restrictions on civil liberty today will start the nation down "the slippery slope" to severe repression in the future.[3] In response, proponents of today's reasonable restrictions argue that the jeremiads about slippery slopes are unrealistic or even paranoid.[4]
This Essay aims to refine the understanding of slippery slopes by examining a particular nation that did slide all the way down the slippery slope.(p.400) When the twentieth century began, the right to arms in Great Britain was robust, and subject to virtually no restrictions. As the century closes, the right has been almost obliterated. In studying the destruction of the British right to arms, this Essay draws conclusions about how slippery slopes operate in real life, and about what kinds of conditions increase or decrease the risk that the first steps down a hill will turn into a slide down a slippery slope.
For purposes of this Essay, the reader will not be asked to make a judgement about the righteousness of the (former) British right to arms or the wisdom of current British gun prohibitions and controls. Instead, the object is simply to examine how a right that is widely respected and unrestricted can, one "reasonable" step at a time, be extinguished. This Essay pays particular attention to how the public's "rights consciousness," which forms such a strong barrier against repressive laws, can weaken and then disappear. The investigation of the British experience offers some insights about the current gun control debate in the United States, and also about ongoing debates over other civil liberties. This Essay does not require that the reader have any affection for the British right to arms; presumably, the reader does have affection for some civil liberties, and the Essay aims to discover principles about how slippery slopes operate. These principles can be applied to any debate where slippery slopes are an issue.
In a nutshell the "liberals" won because they didn't fight amongst themselves, and attacked the opposition with all they had.
Whereas the firearms owners sold each other down the river and ended up up the creek without a paddle.
I have been accused of:
"battering the crap out of everybody who holds a different view (even, in some cases, if the view is only slightly different) endears many people to your cause."
I beg to differ.
I batter the crap out of everybody who is giving an inch.
The "liberals" only need a few of you to do that and they don't need to take a mile: you've given it to them.
Oh, and this isn't just about cars:
It's about the society you are going to end up living in.
And the one your kids are going to inherit.
Read the article and weep:
Substitute cars for guns and it could be describing the politics of motoring.
And unfortunately you can substitute anything you want for cars and it still rings true.
For those of you who missed it the last half dozen, or more, times I posted it, the link is:
All The Way Down The Slippery Slope
All The Way Down The Slippery Slope
I've been talking about this for years. I even wrote an article for CAR in (I think) 1996 likening the establishment's anti-car policies to boiling a frog - 1 degree at a time. The frog sits happily in the water, getting hotter by a little bit every minute or so until he's dead.
I think the UK is going just the same way - and it's not just cars. We're run by obsessive, control-freak anti-libertarians who won't rest until all we can do is take the bus to the CCTV-controlled mall to shop, take the bus home to watch prolefeed on TV and be good, passive, unquestioning little citizens.
And it doesn't matter which government follows this shower into office. No new government ever gives back the taxes, rights and freedoms that a previous government has taken away.
We've got around 36million drivers in the UK, every one of them being bent over and rogered senseless by this government. They pay more and more for fuel (nearly all tax), park where they're told to (and taxed), ticketed when they don't, scammed on every road - and what are we doing about it?
Nothing. Why?
Because the UK's authorities, local and national, now hold their citizens in such utter and complete contempt that they do what the hell they like, knowing damn well no-one will argue. And if a tiny minority do argue, the bureaucratic machine is organised so that all but a very, very tiny few (how many of you have been to the House of Commons to lobby your MP in person?) ever get to put their case.
I think the UK is going just the same way - and it's not just cars. We're run by obsessive, control-freak anti-libertarians who won't rest until all we can do is take the bus to the CCTV-controlled mall to shop, take the bus home to watch prolefeed on TV and be good, passive, unquestioning little citizens.
And it doesn't matter which government follows this shower into office. No new government ever gives back the taxes, rights and freedoms that a previous government has taken away.
We've got around 36million drivers in the UK, every one of them being bent over and rogered senseless by this government. They pay more and more for fuel (nearly all tax), park where they're told to (and taxed), ticketed when they don't, scammed on every road - and what are we doing about it?
Nothing. Why?
Because the UK's authorities, local and national, now hold their citizens in such utter and complete contempt that they do what the hell they like, knowing damn well no-one will argue. And if a tiny minority do argue, the bureaucratic machine is organised so that all but a very, very tiny few (how many of you have been to the House of Commons to lobby your MP in person?) ever get to put their case.
I think that essay gives an interesting insight into the mindset of the NRA. I consider myself to be broadly libertarian in outlook too, but I think their understanding of how liberty is best achieved is fundamentally flawed. Many Americans believe freedom of the individual derives from exercising and defending a written set of rights. The fundamental set of rights is considered to be something that can be written down in a practical legal framework and changed very infrequently.
Problem number one is that the right of one individual can usually be made to restrict the right of another individual. This means claiming a right to be fundamental tends to be an unrealistic siplimification that rapidly breaks down in practice. E.g., one person's right to bear arms can infringe another's right to go unmolested, or one person's right to free speech can infringe another person's right not to be slandered.
It seems to me the significantly better way of achieving individual liberty is to say you have the right to do anything you like so long as you live up to your responsibilities to others. The object of the Law is then to set out the responsibilities a person owes to other people ... don't behave like an insufferable tit, pull your own weight, etc.
The right to bear arms is a pretty clear case of a right that cannot be considered fundamental, except by a lunatic, because one person's right to bear arms is so likely to infringe other people's rights. Add a few lagers, some adultery and a few handguns to your perfect society, stand back and wait for the fireworks.
The history set out in the essay surely shows that the need to have access to arms changes depending on the historical circumstances. The balance swings over time from it being in the best interest of the individual to have arms to hand (in order to defend their broader liberty from pyhsical repression), to other more peaceful times when the presence of arms is unnecessary to defend their freedom and the arms become nothing more than toys.
The thing which makes me laugh is that for all its written constitution and the lip service paid to freedom, I would say that the average American is significantly less free than your average European, largely because of the failure to recognise the freedom which arises from social cooperation (e.g. clubbing together to finance the NHS). America's libertarianism is blended with extreme social conservatism, a legacy of its roots in puritanism. You can get arrested for crossing the road in the wrong place, you can't drink till your 21, some towns impose curfews, fireworks are banned in many states, you are expected to call local police "sir", you can't burn the flag ... to most Europeans these small embuggerances smack of anything other than personal freedom.
Problem number one is that the right of one individual can usually be made to restrict the right of another individual. This means claiming a right to be fundamental tends to be an unrealistic siplimification that rapidly breaks down in practice. E.g., one person's right to bear arms can infringe another's right to go unmolested, or one person's right to free speech can infringe another person's right not to be slandered.
It seems to me the significantly better way of achieving individual liberty is to say you have the right to do anything you like so long as you live up to your responsibilities to others. The object of the Law is then to set out the responsibilities a person owes to other people ... don't behave like an insufferable tit, pull your own weight, etc.
The right to bear arms is a pretty clear case of a right that cannot be considered fundamental, except by a lunatic, because one person's right to bear arms is so likely to infringe other people's rights. Add a few lagers, some adultery and a few handguns to your perfect society, stand back and wait for the fireworks.
The history set out in the essay surely shows that the need to have access to arms changes depending on the historical circumstances. The balance swings over time from it being in the best interest of the individual to have arms to hand (in order to defend their broader liberty from pyhsical repression), to other more peaceful times when the presence of arms is unnecessary to defend their freedom and the arms become nothing more than toys.
The thing which makes me laugh is that for all its written constitution and the lip service paid to freedom, I would say that the average American is significantly less free than your average European, largely because of the failure to recognise the freedom which arises from social cooperation (e.g. clubbing together to finance the NHS). America's libertarianism is blended with extreme social conservatism, a legacy of its roots in puritanism. You can get arrested for crossing the road in the wrong place, you can't drink till your 21, some towns impose curfews, fireworks are banned in many states, you are expected to call local police "sir", you can't burn the flag ... to most Europeans these small embuggerances smack of anything other than personal freedom.
ATG said:
I think that essay gives an interesting insight into the mindset of the NRA........
I think you've missed the point, ATG.
As MMC summarises, the article is about how a "right" (regardless of whether it is right or wrong, or you agree or disagree with it) can be slowly eroded until one day you wake up to find that what started off as a right has, through slow erosion by imperceptible steps, suddenly become a "wrong", and you are suddenly criminalised for trying to enjoy it.
As I pointed out in my introduction, you don't have to support firearms ownership (or US "rights"), in fact, you can support draconian gun control, but you have to accept that the rights that you do want to enjoy, whatever they are, can go the same way.
As someone once said:
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
And as someone else said:
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Unfortunately, sometimes good men do something that is worse than nothing.
Too many supposedly pro motorists are more than happy to allow the anti-motorists a "fair" hearing when they will never allow the same courtesy in return.
Worse, too many pro-motorists will actually back the anti-motorists on certain aspects of their agenda:
"Drink" (not drunk) driving, "speeding" (in a "30"), "speeding" deserving punishment (because "it's the law"), mobile phones used while driving safely, spending motoring taxes on "public" (privately owned for profit) transport, congestion engineering and charging (because congestion allegedly is a problem/it will make more room for me), anti-pollution measures (despite them only applying to cars), the global warming/greenhouse myth...................
Unfortunately, that means "motorists" back the anti-motoring agenda 100%, and therefore we have no right to complain when it is put into place.
I've just reread your post, ATG, and you demonstrate the point I'm trying to make perfectly:
So, that's another vote to ban cars then!
ATG might as well have said:
I think that essay gives an interesting insight into the mindset of the Petrolheads. I consider myself to be broadly pro-motorist in outlook too, but I think their understanding of how liberty is best achieved is fundamentally flawed. Many motorists believe freedom of the individual derives from exercising and defending a written set of rights. The fundamental set of rights is considered to be something that can be written down in a practical legal framework and changed very infrequently.
Problem number one is that the right of one individual can usually be made to restrict the right of another individual. This means claiming a right to be fundamental tends to be an unrealistic simplification that rapidly breaks down in practice. E.g., one person's right to drive a car can infringe another's right to go unmolested, or one person's right to freedom of the road can infringe another person's right not to be injured.
It seems to me the significantly better way of achieving individual liberty is to say you have the right to do anything you like so long as you live up to your responsibilities to others. The object of the Law is then to set out the responsibilities a person owes to other people ... don't behave like an insufferable tit, pull your own weight, etc.
The right to drive a personal motor car is a pretty clear case of a right that cannot be considered fundamental, except by a lunatic, because one person's right to have their own car is so likely to infringe other people's rights. Add a few lagers, some road rage and a few cars to your perfect society, stand back and wait for the fireworks.
The history set out in the essay surely shows that the need to have access to cars changes depending on the historical circumstances. The balance swings over time from it being in the best interest of the individual to have cars to hand (in order to preserve their broader freedom of physical mobility), to other more congested times when the presence of cars is unnecessary to allow their freedom and the cars become nothing more than toys.....
So, that's another vote to ban cars then!
I don't think the situations are necessarily comparable though. Nobody (apart from the armed forces and armed police) actually needs a gun - a gun in civilian ownership is just a toy; if all civilian guns turned to cheese tomorrow it wouldn't make any real difference. If all cars turned to cheese tomorrow, the country would collapse. Even with massively expanded public transport this would still be the case. There will always be a need for cars - they're no more likely to disappear than supermarkets.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff