Thursday, March 15, 2007

Let's Not Become "A NATION OF COWARDS"

Yesterday I had the occasion to show some of the problems with an egregious example of the Left's prevailing view that victims of crime should not resist, but give in and appease the criminals who victimize them.

I should have mentioned the famous essay "A Nation of Cowards," which Jeffrey R. Synder published in The Public Interest in 1993. Fortunately, although The Public Interest ceased publication in 2005, Mr. Snyder's article has been widely reproduced on the worldwide web, and you can find it here, here, or here. You can buy a book-length version (Accurate Press, 2001) online, too. It is well worth reading, saving, and sharing with your friends and loved ones.

I have no intention of reproducing extensive excerpts here, but there are a few short paragraphs that are too good to pass up. Contrast this with the sniveling, fearful coward I linked to yesterday, who advocates giving up all your property to criminals because "that's what insurance is for:"
How can a person who values himself so highly calmly accept the indignity of a criminal assault? How can one who believes that the essence of his dignity lies in his self-determination passively accept the forcible deprivation of that self-determination? How can he, quietly, with great dignity and poise, simply hand over the goods?

The assumption, of course, is that there is no inconsistency. The advice not to resist a criminal assault and simply hand over the goods is founded on the notion that one's life is of incalculable value, and that no amount of property is worth it. Put aside, for a moment, the outrageousness of the suggestion that a criminal who proffers lethal violence should be treated as if he has instituted a new social contract: "I will not hurt or kill you if you give me what I want." For years, feminists have labored to educate people that rape is not about sex, but about domination, degradation, and control. Evidently, someone needs to inform the law enforcement establishment and the media that kidnapping, robbery, carjacking, and assault are not about property.

Crime is not only a complete disavowal of the social contract, but also a commandeering of the victim's person and liberty. If the individual's dignity lies in the fact that he is a moral agent engaging in actions of his own will, in free exchange with others, then crime always violates the victim's dignity. It is, in fact, an act of enslavement. Your wallet, your purse, or your car may not be worth your life, but your dignity is; and if it is not worth fighting for, it can hardly be said to exist.

There's more wisdom here:

Should you ever be the victim of an assault, a robbery, or a rape, you will find it very difficult to call the police while the act is in progress, even if you are carrying a portable cellular phone. Nevertheless, you might be interested to know how long it takes them to show up. Department of Justice statistics for 1991 show that, for all crimes of violence, only 28 percent of calls are responded to within five minutes. The idea that protection is a service people can call to have delivered and expect to receive in a timely fashion is often mocked by gun owners, who love to recite the challenge, "Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first."

Many people deal with the problem of crime by convincing themselves that they live, work, and travel only in special "crime-free" zones. Invariably, they react with shock and hurt surprise when they discover that criminals do not play by the rules and do not respect these imaginary boundaries. If, however, you understand that crime can occur anywhere at anytime, and if you understand that you can be maimed or mortally wounded in mere seconds, you may wish to consider whether you are willing to place the responsibility for safeguarding your life in the hands of others.

And here:

One who values his life and takes seriously his responsibilities to his family and community will possess and cultivate the means of fighting back, and will retaliate when threatened with death or grievous injury to himself or a loved one. He will never be content to rely solely on others for his safety, or to think he has done all that is possible by being aware of his surroundings and taking measures of avoidance. Let's not mince words: He will be armed, will be trained in the use of his weapon, and will defend himself when faced with lethal violence.

Fortunately, there is a weapon for preserving life and liberty that can be wielded effectively by almost anyone -- the handgun. Small and light enough to be carried habitually, lethal, but unlike the knife or sword, not demanding great skill or strength, it truly is the "great equalizer." Requiring only hand-eye coordination and a modicum of ability to remain cool under pressure, it can be used effectively by the old and the weak against the young and the strong, by the one against the many.

The handgun is the only weapon that would give a lone female jogger a chance of prevailing against a gang of thugs intent on rape, a teacher a chance of protecting children at recess from a madman intent on massacring them, a family of tourists waiting at a mid-town subway station the means to protect themselves from a gang of teens armed with razors and knives.

Take the time to go to one of the sites linked, above, and Read. The. Whole. Thing.

1 comment:

reliapundit said...

great post!

i think one reason that leftist do not feel they should defend themselves is the fact that for leftists one's identity is a product of which groups one belongs to and not one's individual sanctity.

to a leftist a person is not a free agent or a unique individual as much as the sum of her class/group meberships.

one might be a black/christian/middle-aged/handicapped/urban veteran

another an asian/gay/senior

another a transgender/buddhist/teen.

and the left only valorizes the people who have membership in priority victim-groups: poor; non-white; GLBT; illegal immigrant; etc.

jews - as small a minority as exists - are not a favored minority/class.

the left argues that government/society OWES each person something based on their membership in certain groups. hence "affirmative action" which is juts a high-falluitin' euphemism for judging people by the color of their skin.

the criminal is a more favored group than crime victim - unless the crime is rape by a white.

homeowners are not a favored group - nor is anyone with any property that a poorer person might want to take - or "need" to steal.

so they think that if a poor criminal NEEDS to rob someone - and picks them by accident, that the best course is to let him do it.

which is just another way to formulate the fact that the left doesn't value individual human dignity.

human value comes from membership in groups, and not the fcat that you are a living breathing human entitled to all your inalienable - GOD-given human rights..