Frasier Institute “freedom index”, the USA and New Zealand, and the Second Amendment

I stumbled into a discussion on a web page. It seems like the owners of this web site are only interested in debunking any idea that goes against the official government narratives, or the official government fashion of the day.

For example, they instead of debunking the crazy idea that a command to the people to disarm would make criminals disarm themselves, or stop murders and violence, they debunk the logic of self-defense. They say your right to defend yourself is stronger if you disarm yourself.

[QUOTE=plane852;25139]I will add that despite a lack of right to “bear arms,” New Zealand was ranked the freest country in the world – 5 ranks above the United States.

From the Frasier Institute, the report that annoyed a good chunk of the American public:

Glancing at the Frazier Institute link, they apparently do have a good philosophical basis for their measure, although quantification of freedom seems to me a difficult thing to define. They have the starting point right, in that their “Overview” on how they measure it says it’s a “negative” definition of freedom, meaning, how much are you free of restraints on what you want to do.

That said, it is important to realize that the importance of the Second Amendment in the United States Constitution is not measurable. It is often said, including by both signers of the Declaration of Independence and by members of the Constitutional Convention and “founders” in general, in one way or another, that the Second Amendment is the guarantor of the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

The source of our rights, the razor d’être, the reason we have them, is not because a Constitution or amendment or law grants them, because they do not have the legitimate power to do so. There is no moral justification for allowing a government to be the final decision-maker on what rights you have or do not have. If you say the government by law or by representation or monarchy or “democratic” referendum is the final say on how much freedom of speech to allow you, or how much freedom to defend yourself from tyranny you are allowed, then all of your freedoms are exposed to violation.

An absolute monarch that lets his subjects rampant in your criticism of him as a matter of policy means that yes, you have that freedom, but by allowing that monarch to be an absolute monarch, you are exposing yourself to arbitrary loss of ALL such policies in the future.

To the extent New Zealand is exposed by restricting self-defense, its citizens are exposed to the changing winds of political weather. To the extent they depend on Australia’s benevolent friendship with them, they are exposed to the political winds of fortune outside their country.

My wife once stopped a kidnapper in his tracks who had started walking off with her son by pulling out her “concealed carry”, before we met. It might be a more respectful culture in New Zealand right now, but were individuals of the Maori people always respected? Their descendants would have very good reason to suspect any such false sense of security.

But the biggest danger is one that has inflicted Americans already. It is that content and gullible mentality that lets a people’s guard down, that “It can’t happen here” danger. Wherever “here” is.

The Jews of Germany –and Gypsies, and the handicapped, and genuine liberty-minded Christians– had plenty of reason to arm themselves against their own tyrannical government, but the government gave no overt signals of what was in the future. “It can’t happen here”, they said.

The Armenians had plenty of reason to defend themselves against the Turkish government.

The Ukrainians and all Russian subjects have every reason to suspect their government.

In the United States, lots of political and especially economic freedom is violated already, but the main reason that a Nazi-type regime or a Stalin-type regime is not a reasonable prospect right now is the fact that there are at least tens of millions of citizens that are decently well-armed and who are not in lock-step at any given time with their government.

All of the freedoms that a New Zealand-er has is worthless if he is attacked at a time he cannot defend himself. My wife had her means of self-defense. Te right to defend yourself against attack is the same as the right to defend your family, and that is the also the right to the tools necessary to defend your family.

My wife had every good reason to carry it. The more dangerous your town, your province, your country, your WORLD, the more need there is for people to have access to the products that are useful for doing so, against anything that might come at them.

New Zealand, for all its geographical advantages, is not immune. The Irish survived the Vandals ravaging the continent while St. Patrick’s followers saved many of the Roman and Greek classics, but a Papal army subjugated them again centuries later. China is not all that much across the water, and WW2 shows us that a country of that size is not incapable of invading an island nation even halfway around the world.

And by the way, many of us Americans are finding out –not just criminals– that any given individual in the police force or prosecutor’s office is not always such a great protector, either. The increasing disrespect for all rights in courts, law, foreign policy, search and seizure, Hollywood movies, these have had their parts in affecting the minds of many in law enforcement.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

%d bloggers like this: