Boston manhunt – a dystopian sci-fi turned into real life

Anyone else notice how the Boston Manhunt was like a dystopian sci-fi turned into real life?

  • A whole city locked down
  • Highly militarized police on the streets
  • Warrantless house-to-house searches
  • A 19 year-old kid on the run and armed with bombs
  • The fugitive is apprehended and the crowd cheers

This is policing in the 21st Century and it’s scary. Worse still, it’s clearly intended to be scary.

Honestly, I’m worried about what things will be like in 10 years time. We don’t have to live in America to feel the knock-on effects of what happens there.

boston-manhunt-2013-panes

http://imgur.com/a/Asgdb

Why would anyone need guns in a modern society?

“There is no need for guns in modern society. We have non-violent democratic mechanisms for resolving disputes.”

These assertions are casually thrown around during debates about gun control by those who believe themselves to be more civilized and of course, more morally upright. On the surface, they may sound perfectly reasonable. After all, hasn’t society progressed to the point where we no longer need the tools of vulgar barbarity? Nevertheless, they are wrong.

Equality requires force, order demands violence

To understand why, we must first look into the fundamentals of how we order society. The liberal democracy is the world’s primary political system and regardless of practice, is also the official political system in the Philippines. Its underlying principles are ideas of liberty and equality. Few people realize, however, that these two concepts are at odds and cannot harmoniously exist together. Liberty is a pure condition and can be found in nature but equality is imposed by Man and must be established by force. Humans are intrinsically not equal so equality means holding back some while pushing forward others; groups who discriminate are compelled by the state to desist. Equality requires that freedoms are denied.

Any form of government, whether it be democratic or authoritarian, eventually boils down to the use of force against the individual. As author Jack Donavan writes, ‘Order demands violence. A rule not ultimately backed by the threat of violence is merely a suggestion.’ In a democracy, the majority simply delegates the lawful application of force to a smaller subsection of society: police, military and the like. This mechanism of violence by representation lulls people into thinking that they themselves are above the messy business of pulling a trigger. Yet every time we clamor for a law, a tax or more regulation, we are, in effect, asking someone to point a gun at another. Disobedience of the law, taken to its ultimate conclusion, will eventually result in the loss of life or liberty for any dissenter.

Most of us in society go about our lives never having to directly encounter this violence. Our hands are clean of any actual blood. Yet every voter, by the very nature of their participation in the democratic process, is complicit in perpetuating the need for guns in a modern democracy. Guns are the cornerstone of our political system. With no way to enforce the ‘will of the majority’ through the final threat of violence, our governments would be unable to function; the whole purpose of voting becomes meaningless without a gun ready to back up the arbiter’s decision.

The peace-loving gun control advocates who rely on government to push their agenda are thus mired in the deepest hypocrisy. They despise the use of violence yet wield it to achieve their aims. As George Orwell wrote, ‘Those who “abjure” violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.’

The Myth of the Uniform

Having delegated away the uncomfortable idea of administering violence, many take for granted that members of the government would naturally be more competent at the task than ordinary civilians. For example, even the most ardent gun control advocate will usually concede with the idea of allowing police to be armed. Their thinking seems to be that a uniform and special role in society somehow endows a person with abilities above those of ordinary citizens. There is a grain of truth in this since by definition, trained professionals will have received an element of instruction. The mistake is in assuming the extent of the training and that only police can be competent, with no room for the idea that civilian firearms owners can gain equal or better skill through private training.

Nevertheless, it’s well-known in the American firearms training industry that budget constraints mean police officers rarely get the chance to practice after basic firearms qualification. The New York Police Department, for example, require only semiannual re-qualification on stationary paper targets. The few who wish to become more proficient must often resort to seeking instruction in the private sector. One can hardly imagine what training budgets are like in the Philippines, where the PNP has trouble paying its electrical bills and the basic entry-level salary is only slightly above that of the average household driver. In contrast, civilian gun enthusiasts practice monthly, even weekly, spending thousands of pesos of their own money per session to hone their skills.

Gunless society proponents who say only police should be armed have no trouble imaging bloodbath scenarios with firearms-owning civilians. It’s strange that they seem afflicted with selective memory when it comes to remembering the boy who was shot five times by police during a hostage incident, or the infamous Rizal Park hostage crisis. They also seem to forget all the stories of police corruption and intimidation that permeate our society, as well as the suspected police involvement in the Maguindanao massacre. If anti-gun campaigners truly want a safer society, they should in fact be calling for better police training, raising salaries and improving professionalism in the force.

Blunders aren’t limited to the PNP. A confrontation between police and a gunman outside New York’s Empire State Building resulted in nine wounded bystanders. All were hit by police bullets. A study by the RAND Corporation for the The New York Police Department revealed that the average hit rate for NYPD Officers involved in a gunfight was only 18%. Even in the UK, where firearms are issued only to very small numbers of highly-trained members, police have shown appalling lapses. In 2005, Jean Charles de Menezes was accidentally shot by elite SO19 firearms officers who mistook him for a terrorist. An investigation also found that armed British police fired their guns more times by mistake than when responding to threats. These incidents include royal police who were apparently guarding the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s home and royal protection officer who accidentally fired his weapon on the royal train.

Interestingly enough, several studies indicate that armed citizens make fewer mistakes than police. While evidence for this claim may be open to dispute, it is time, at least, to puncture the myth that government agents are the only members of society who can be trusted with arms.

Two opposing world-views

Gun control advocates seem to live for the utopian world where government will one day allow everyone to live in peace and harmony. To them, government is the only agency capable of defending ordinary citizens. But who is the government but a group of individual humans? In other words, anti-gun people insist that someone else takes care of their family. Furthermore, they advocate that everyone else should be forced down this same path.

Ultimately, the gun control debate isn’t about guns but two opposing world-views. One is where people believe that responsibility for your life lies with someone else, and that other people know better about how you should live. That is a world-view of dependence and authoritarianism. The other is one of self-reliance and liberty—that the ultimate duty of safeguarding one’s life and family begins with the individual.

Those who see the government as the answer to humanity’s problems cannot imagine a world where ordinary people provide their own solutions, whether it’s in the realm of one’s livelihood or protecting one’s family. Their mantra is, “Leave it to the government as they have promised to take care of us!” After relinquishing responsibility for their own welfare, it is no wonder that gun control advocates do not see a place for guns in society; they demand that others risk their own lives for them.

The truth is that we alone have the primary responsibility of taking care of ourselves and our families. One can argue that the government can be there to provide support, but safeguarding an individual’s life is not the government’s job.

The place for guns modern society

Just as a trusting young child looks up to its parents for care, ardent believers in government do not see a time when their Protector will fail them. Or turn on them. Many seem to have forgotten that just 70 years ago, the whole world was embroiled in war and our grandparents were fighting governments that brutalized their people and their neighbors. Within a generation, the Philippines, Asia’s first independent democratic country, was corrupted into a dictatorship by a democratically-elected politician. The hard-won freedoms that Filipinos now seem to hold so dear have once before been snatched away by a home-grown tyrant.

If we were to lose our freedoms again, they may not be so easily regained in our lifetime, nor our children’s lifetime. Back in the earliest days of democracy, Plato warned that democracies will always degenerate into tyranny. This has been proven true many times throughout history. From the final demise of the Roman Republic with Emperor Augustus, humanity had to wait one thousand two hundred years before the seeds of freedom would once again spring from the Magna Carta in England.

A popular rhetorical question is to ask whether or not we would want to live in a society where ordinary people go about armed. This is the height of complacency and decadence. Being armed is a prerequisite for freedom. Free speech and the ability to vote are worth nothing if someone can put a gun to your head. This revelation is often met with incredulity or even outright mockery: “Do you really believe you are going to stand up against the might of an army?” It doesn’t matter what we believe. Human history tells us that one day, civilians will have to take up arms against their government or a foreign invader. These words are not meant to spread sedition. They are merely an acknowledgement of history. When that time comes, do we want to be left with nothing but rocks and empty hope?

The place for guns in modern society is at the side of ordinary people. An armed citizenry is the only defense against a tyrannical government, both foreign and domestic. Arms act both as a preventative measure and a corrective measure. If we wish to keep the liberties that come with our modern society, we must maintain the means to defend them.

War isn’t the way out of the West Philippine Sea standoff with China

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”

-Sun Tzu

The Philippine-China standoff is heating up. It seems that this incident is stirring up Filipino patriotic fervor and many want to show that the Philippines will not be intimidated by China. Predictably, their solution is to take the military path and I’m hearing war drums beating from a number of my acquaintances. Armed conflict, however, is not the way out of this particular situation.

In my opinion, this current situation was the result of heavy-handedness by the Philippine government which greatly miscalculated the outcome of their actions. They showed no finesse in their approach of sending a warship to confront Chinese fishing boats in the Scarborough Shoal. Instead of trying to find a diplomatic way forward, it thought we could just throw our weight around and somehow get our point across.

Although using civilian coastguard to confront Chinese fishing boats may have been more appropriate, the Philippine government instead sent a military vessel. This predictably forced the Chinese Navy’s involvement to show themselves as the big man in the area. In effect, the Philippine government’s actions caused China to escalate by saber-rattling; China cannot be seen allowing a ‘small player’ like the Philippines to stand up to it without losing face.

The US on the other hand doesn’t really want to get involved in an actual armed conflict. With their presidential elections coming up, proposing to send more of their young men and women to fight in another far-off part of the world won’t exactly be a vote-earner. However, it certainly has something to gain from this situation with the added advantage of a way out. Even though the US has a Mutual Defense Treaty with the Philippines, they can if necessary stand back a little by claiming that territorial sovereignty is still undetermined. My friend Harry Santos observed that we got a glimpse of this during the 2008 Georgia-Russia conflict.

At the same time, the US benefits from increased calls to allow their patrols in the area and even perhaps get bases back on the Philippines. It wouldn’t really surprise anyone if American diplomats gave assurances of support to the Aquino administration, knowing full well that they could back out. Unfortunately, our own Philippine diplomats are out of their league in this arena. We simply don’t have the experience for such maneuverings on the world stage and are likely being played by powers who are both more savvy and have lots to gain from this confrontation.

Exhaust all options before considering war

I’ve been called unpatriotic and in denial by more hawkish observers for holding these views. They seem to see war as a forgone conclusion and you can almost hear their excitement at the prospect of holding foreign invaders at bay. There’s talk of the need for missiles and ‘only a few’ jets and upgraded navy vessels. Apparently, some military hardware is the magic bullet for the Philippines’ problem with China. If only it were that easy.

In order to have any sort of balance of power with the Chinese, the Philippines needs to be an economic powerhouse. We cannot realistically fight a war when we don’t even have the money to pay the electricity bills for our local police stations.

Nonoy Oplas, an economist friend who’s given a presentation on the economics of this territorial conflict, estimates that it would cost the Philippines a minimum of Php350 billion (over USD8 billion) to wage a three day war. I’m very interested to know where those who believe me to be in denial expect to source the funds, or what we need do to get it.

No-one can tell for certain if war will come. Regardless, we definitely ought to be prepared militarily. That is why I support a policy of having an armed population with no limits on ownership of arms to make us a hard target. But war should always be the last option. If it comes, I doubt that the armchair generals I’ve heard salivating over a heroic resistance will even be in any condition actually go to war. It will be the troops of Philippine and US military who’ll be first in the firing line. Next to suffer will be the old, the very young and the sick. I don’t want to waste their lives because of some incompetent politicians with below par diplomacy skills.

So, what’s the way out? One answer is to explore harnessing the international community, an avenue that our politicians have not yet effectively leveraged. Nonoy Oplas already covered some options so I won’t rehash them in this post. As he observed, the Chinese government simply doesn’t know how to effectively deal with civil society organizations and public protest. This has been seen recently with the case of Liu Xiaobo, the jailed Chinese dissident and Nobel peace prizewinner. In trying to silence him, they ended up making him more widely known, with his writings now to be published in English for the first time. Conversely, China knows war and their military is far superior to ours. The Philippine government should not have tried to fight them in that arena. Our politicians are trying to wage war on the country that was the birthplace of Sun Tsu and The Art of War.

In The Art of War, Sun Tzu wrote, “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” Maybe if a few of our politicians bothered to read the book, we wouldn’t be in this situation.

UK Government plans to roll back state intrusion by spying on you

In 2010, David Cameron and Nick Clegg promised that their coalition government will introduce a Freedom Bill that will “implement a full programme of measures to reverse the substantial erosion of civil liberties and roll back state intrusion.”

Now in 2012, we have the Communications Capabilities Development Programme, another proposal for mass surveillance of British citizens’ communications.

Strange, what with Europe’s ACTA, America’s PIPA and SOPA and Canada’s C-30, you’d think that governments were working together to deprive citizens of their freedom. Excuse me while I put on my tin-foil hat.

‘We the People’ loses appeal with governments, not citizens

According to an article in the New York Times, a study to be published in The New York University Law Review finds that the US Constitution’s influence is dwindling worldwide. Apparently, people in the world’s democracies find it to be an antiquated document that’s no longer appealing.

“The United States Constitution is terse and old, and it guarantees relatively few rights,” says Adam Liptak. He goes on to imply that things would be better if it were easier to amend or even replaced completely. From the study, Liptak quotes, “Among the world’s democracies, constitutional similarity to the United States has clearly gone into free fall. Over the 1960s and 1970s, democratic constitutions as a whole became more similar to the U.S. Constitution, only to reverse course in the 1980s and 1990s.”

To say that people now find the Constitution irrelevant is a distraction from the real issue and if I were to be less charitable, I’d say it’s almost deceitful. The truth is that governments around the world, including the US government, simply don’t like it. Through its Bill of Rights, it was and still is a revolutionary document that puts the rights of individuals above the whims of the government.

Of course the US government wants to be able to change it; those damn First, Second, Fourth, Eighth and Tenth Amendments are bloody annoying. Of course no modern government wants anything like it; they’ve learnt that codifying individual rights while allowing people the teeth to protect them is just asking for trouble from the pesky citizenry.

It seems that Learned Men Everywhere (a.k.a. apologists for the State) are holding up the Canadian Charter as their new standard for liberty. Why? It contains all the fluffy feel-good back-patting that has mass appeal while keeping power firmly within the government’s domain.

Stop Internet Censorship

SOPA, PIPA and ACTA are worldwide moves to censor the internet. They come under the guise of fighting piracy and enforcing intellectual property. In reality, these bills are a push by large corporations to protect their profits and outdated business models.

Without a free and open internet, our ability to share knowledge would be severely restricted.

Just because these may be foreign laws, don’t think that they won’t affect us. America’s laws are beginning to extend worldwide.

Consider these cases:

  1. Even if your company or organization is not based in the US, your website could be targeted as a US domestic site if it was registered or assigned by a US-based registrar. This would be the case with .com and .org domains.
  2. Recently, a judge in the United Kingdom ruled that a British student accused of running a file-sharing site could be extradited to the US, despite never having been to America or using US-based servers.

You can find more information at following sites:

Confusing violence with aggression

People often confuse violence with aggression and thus believe, foolishly, that the principle of non-violence is virtuous. So twisted are their morals that they would allow the coercion of innocent people in the vain attempt to avoid violence.

They are wrong. Sometimes you need to use violence to protect yourself and others against aggressors. In contrast, it is often difficult to make a rational case for the use of aggression.

How exactly are the two concepts different? Violence can be defined as the “exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse”. Aggression, on the other hand, is “a forceful action or procedure especially when intended to dominate or master”. The difference is subtle but crucial: the intention of domination or mastery over another human being.

Aggression is the threat or initiation of violence with the ultimate goal of subjugation. A robber forces his victim to hand over property; a rapist defiles the body and mind not simply for sex but to dominate; governments enact laws and demand compliance; nation-states go to war to show their power over other nations.

Acts of coercion can ultimately only be countered by violence. Rarely can you dissuade an attacker unless your words are backed by at least the potential of force.

Modern society has become so afraid of violence that we want it banished, relegated only to movie theatre fantasy. We think that passing laws will make it vanish from real life. It won’t. Keeping our fighting spirit locked up only encourages the aggressors to come out and play.

The path of non-violence is futile because violence is an innate part of being alive. If anything, believe in the principle non-aggression.

Edit 23/12/2011: Here’s Charles St. Michael talking about bullies and explaining why violence solves everything.

Rationalizations of the UK riots

It bothers me when I hear rationalizations of the UK riots being about the marginalized poor reaching a breaking point and lashing out against the country’s power elite. That’s complete nonsense as there was no politics behind their actions.

If the riots were truly an uprising, they would have burned Downing Street, not hauled off flat screen TVs and Playstations. This was thuggery, vandalism, and nothing else. Those who took part were opportunistic violent yobs who had nothing better to do than destroy other people’s livelihoods.

We’ll only see an uprising when the middle-class reach their breaking point. From the way things are going, it looks like that won’t take much longer.

Freedom of expression in the Philippines

An art exhibit held at the Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP) provoked controversy and debate about freedom of expression in the Philippines. Enough people were shocked and offended by the work that the CCP agreed to close it down. Apparently, freedom of expression has gone too far in the Philippines and the devout should not have to suffer such sacrilege.

Personally, I find this kind of so-called ‘art’ distasteful and a waste of time. However, we do not have freedom of expression in the Philippines, as this case clearly shows. If someone more powerful than you doesn’t want your message to get out, they have many methods at their disposal to have you shut up. That is not freedom of expression, only lip-service to freedom.

The best way to deal with this kind of thing is to simply ignore it. After all, what the exhibitors crave is attention and by making a big deal of it, you give them exactly what they want. I would never have heard of the exhibition if it weren’t for the furor involved in having it shut down.

A friend of mine asked if it was right to invoke freedom of expression no matter how obnoxious or objectionable the message was to others. The real question is who gets to decide what is obnoxious and objectionable? In Jacobean England, Catholics were repressed; in the USSR, religion itself was objectionable; in Mao’s China, intellectuals and professionals were intolerable.

Freedom is one of those few things that must be absolute; it must apply to everyone otherwise it may be taken away from anyone. Today we may be the elites who get to decide what is tolerable. What about tomorrow?

In a free society, people may choose to ignore those views with which they disagree. Dissenting voices are not silenced, no matter how distasteful they are to the mainstream.

Does that mean chaos should reign and people can incite violence? No. Oliver Wendell Holmes said so aptly, “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.” But holding an art exhibition is not swinging one’s fist at another’s nose.