Nothing is Certain in Life but … Taxes?

04 Wednesday May 2016

Posted by perrinlovett in News and Notes

Tags

Heaven, Jesus Christ, life, literature, morality, political science, science

For the better part of a year I’ve been working on a project (book) of comparative literature with popular cultural and political science commentary. Part of my research centers around experimental medical science. So it is that I run across stories like this: Dead could be brought ‘back to life’ in groundbreaking project, Telegraph, Science Section, May 3, 2016.

A biotech company in the US has been granted ethical permission to recruit 20 patients who have been declared clinically dead from a traumatic brain injury, to test whether parts of their central nervous system can be brought back to life.

Scientists will use a combination of therapies, which include injecting the brain with stem cells and a cocktail of peptides, as well as deploying lasers and nerve stimulation techniques which have been shown to bring patients out of comas.

The trial participants will have been certified dead and only kept alive through life support. They will be monitored for several months using brain imaging equipment to look for signs of regeneration, particularly in the upper spinal cord – the lowest region of the brain stem which controls independent breathing and heartbeat.

The team believes that the brain stem cells may be able to erase their history and re-start life again, based on their surrounding tissue – a process seen in the animal kingdom in creatures like salamanders who can regrow entire limbs.

Lasers, stem cells, and a cocktail of peptides; oh my! “Withered men compound[ed] strong elixirs,” sayeth Faramir.

Cartoonstock.com.

This line of Frankenstein-esque research may hold promise for treating or reversing paralysis and other unpleasantries. As for raising the dead, it also raises numerous spiritual, moral, legal and philosophical questions. If we can bring the dead back to “life”, should we? For me, I don’t like the idea. Jesus promises life eternal. He’s talking about something completely different – happiness and higher purpose forever. The new laser-powered zombification is more about vanity and fear than anything else. I’ll leave that aspect alone for now.

I had an earthly thought about living on after the natural life has passed. Might this be a ghastly key to keeping people enslaved to debt, taxes, and the arbitrary rule of the positive for extra years, decades, or centuries? Imagine if you will that you physically expire and arrive at the Heavenly Ellis Island. After waiting your turn you are enthusiastically greeted by Saint Peter. Just as he’s about to punch your ticket you fall through the floor only to wake up in a recovery room filled with the idiotic sounds of daytime television. After a year of physical and cognitive therapy you get released back into the mortal world. You then discover your taxes are late, your state whatever license has expired, and the mortgage company has a judgement against you. The reality of your immortality sinks in as you realize this scenario could be endlessly repeated. Joy!

My example is a bit extreme but so is the idea of rebuilding a brain and expecting to have the same person and soul that previously inhabited the old brain working in the new. How would, will that all work out? My guess is not too well.

They say in life nothing is certain except death and taxes. I would rather have the latter, not the former, removed from the equation. You?

Death at the Academy

23 Wednesday Mar 2016

Posted by perrinlovett in Other Columns

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

America, college, culture, debt, education, freedom, government, internet, law, learning, Mississippi, political science, political theory, Second Amendment, students, stupidity, The People, University of Georgia

I used to want to teach law or political theory at the university level. Now I do not. Well, honestly part of me still does. However, I have come to the conclusion it isn’t going to happen anytime soon. For years – a decade or so – I had a search running at Higheredjobs.com. I recently turned it off.

After maybe 100 failed inquiry letters and several first (and last) interviews I realized there is a disconnect between me and the academic system. It’s a good thing. I would not fit in. I imagine being the only non-communist on the faculty might be uncomfortable. Less comfortable would be my students. As I have chronicled here modern university students are large toddlers, less concerned with learning than feeling safe.

There’s a new and better educational model anyway. It uses independence and technology for a new take on the classical school experience. Socrates and Aquinas would approve if they were still around. In their respective ancient days only those who desired to learn furthered their education beyond a rudimentary level.

Times had changed by the 1970s when my father was teaching at Mississippi State. The emphasis was primarily on learning but the post hippy culture was creeping in. Serious students mingled on campus with party animals. In the corners social revolutionaries plotted the future of safe spaces, inclusion, and sustainability (still not sure what they sustain – certainly not education). I remember the pretty girls and the copious amounts of coffee and cigarettes consumed by the faculty.

Times kept changing. By the advent of my tenure at the University of Georgia the counterculture was taking control. Still, those that wanted to learn could but it was frowned upon. I fell somewhere between the studious and the partyers. The pretty girls still got my attention. Things were worse in law school. There I joined, fully, the ranks of the studious. As a rebel of demented mental ability I sought out the fundamental theories and origins behind the law. I largely did so in secret and on my own.

Today the inmates run the asylum. Beyond math, science and engineering real learning is frowned upon. There’s a lot of frowning. Tell a pretty girl she’s pretty and you may be brought up on charges. Coffee still seems safe but nicotine is verboten. Say things like “I like guns” or “taxes are too high” or “people should work for a living” and the student crybabies will melt and the faculty will launch into hysterical tyrades.

To be a white man on campus results in treatment once reserved for the likes of Hester Prynne. Pride in Western tradition, morality and common sense are treated like leprosy.

The schools (as they are still called) waste resources on sports, safe spaces, counseling, women’s studies, black studies, gay black women’s studies and a host of other nonsense.

These are the universities mind you. From Harvard to Notre Dame to my beloved UGA the failure of education has spread like a cancer. The lower, primary schools (especially those run by government – most) are in even worse shape.

Notre Dame professor Dr. Patrick Deneen says even the best colleges, like his, are “committing civilizational suicide.”

“What our educational system aims to produce is cultural amnesia, a wholesale lack of curiosity, history-less free agents, and educational goals composed of content-free processes and unexamined buzz-words like ‘critical thinking,’ ‘diversity,’ ‘ways of knowing,’ ‘social justice,’ and ‘cultural competence.’

Our students are the achievement of a systemic commitment to producing individuals without a past for whom the future is a foreign country, cultureless ciphers who can live anywhere and perform any kind of work without inquiring about its purposes or ends, perfected tools for an economic system that prizes ‘flexibility’ (geographic, interpersonal, ethical).”

Frightening but accurate. What happened? What are the sane and the responsible to do?

Gary North did a fantastic job laying out the history and demise of American education. His conclusion is simple and right – “close the schools.” They have failed. They do the opposite of what was once intended. They are beyond the point of redemption. Close them all.

The public schools are in group two. They are likely to die, no matter what. The only economically relevant question today is this: “How long will voters authorize the tax money required to keep them on life support?”

– North, March 19, 2016.

He mentions the modern, better alternative, guaranteed to deliver real learning – the online education. The Kahn Academy is the largest school in the world with 25 million students. It’s free to anyone. There are others like it. They are beginning to take a bite out of traditional, failed schooling.

MIT boldly put nearly all of its courses online for free, for anyone. Some books will need to be acquired. There will be a small expense associated though many, many books are completely free on Kindle. Any ambitious young person with a laptop and a very basic comprehension of English and fundamental math can literally educate themselves at little to no cost and at their own pace.

There are a host of other opportunities online like Udemy. It’s an outfit or concept like this I may end up going with. Or I might just publish books and/or create my own e-classes in topics that interest me. The sky is the limit.

Educrats and silly professors are panicked because of this increasing competition. No time wasted waiting on the lowest common denominator to catch up. No boredom. No anti-western indoctrination. No crushing student loans of money illegally printed out of thin air.

No need to wallow amid a bunch of weak socialists in a dangerous environment. I recently noted the progress of Georgia’s H.B.859, a bill that would allow free people to legally carry firearms at state colleges. At present these schools are gun free zones – the type of places where the majority of violence occurs. It happens because criminals have a monopoly on force in such places. The bill would tilt the tables in favor of ordinary people.

As such, it is opposed by criminals and school faculty and staff lacking common sense. UGA law professor Sonja West wrote a hysterical piece for Slate decrying self-defense. Using backwards antidotal evidence and shaky psuedo legal reasoning she conveys her central thought: she does not like guns. At least not guns in private hands. It’s just terrible people might have a legal fighting chance to repel attacks; the Second Amendment be damned.

The hoplophobia and mania runs deeper at the Red and Black, UGA’s leftist student newspaper: “Donald Trump may be the 21st-century equivalent of Mussolini, but the real threat to democracy is right here in Georgia.”

That’s all I really need to quote. Having worn out the Hitler label the lefties are turning to Mussolini. The poor argument is that guns threaten democracy. Democracy is about as big a threat as one might contrive. Free people with guns are a check on violence and tyranny, democratic or otherwise. Pitiful.

There was a death at the academy. Learning died. Now the schools themselves are headed to the graveyard. I hope you will share this information with a young person and said person’s parents. Help save them from wasting time and money and from exposure to whimps, communists, and freedom haters. Help them learn and explore their world freely.

All But Dissertation

24 Thursday Dec 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Other Columns

≈ Comments Off on All But Dissertation

Tags

ABD, America, anarchy, college, communism, Diploma mills, education, Gary North, JD, Perrin Lovett, PhD, political science, political theory

A.B.D. has special meaning in the academic world. It stands for All But Dissertation and means a scholar has completed all work towards his PhD except for the final review of his primary research project. Universities advertise many professorships as open to ABDs so long as the candidate meets the other job requirements. Dissertation approval and granting of the actual degree is, of course, necessary.

I know this because I have applied for scores of academic jobs only to be declined every time. According to the American Bar Association a JD is equivalent to a PhD for teaching purposes. Most hiring committees have a different view. In reality they want a professor with a terminal degree in the exact discipline taught. I almost exclusively applied for political science positions so I understand my handicap. That, and my personal political philosophy is at odds with most American faculties: me, anarchist; them, communist.

At any rate I am not hurt in the least by this quandary. In fact, I’m kind of happy about it. I’m not alone either. There is a glut of advanced degrees out there destroying the market. There are shocking figures about PhDs taking jobs as waiters, bartenders and truckers. Others turn to alternative disciplines. My writing career is my alternative to teaching and to law.

Gary North faced a similar situation decades ago. He just wrote an enlightening and somewhat damning article on the experience.

Certification vs. competence: Which is it to be? Of course, it would be nice to have both, but Christian colleges are strapped financially, and they cannot afford both. In fact, given the nature of bureaucracies, especially academic bureaucracies, they cannot be sure of anything except certification. There are no measurements of academic competence that are easily examined, since each field is so specialized that aging faculty members are hardly able to judge the competence of their younger, more energetic colleagues. If anything, competence in the classroom is a threat to the self-esteem of those who are tenured, and who also make the decisions. But certification upgrades their departments, and therefore lends prestige to them. What those doing the hiring really want is to hire new men with superb credentials and only mediocre performance subsequent to the earning of those credentials.

When I Didn’t Get Hired, North, Dec. 22, 2015.

Still, part of me wants a PhD in political science – political philosophy, specifically. I see three avenues for achieving this goal. I could return to school and earn a degree. I wrote a short time ago of my last failed attempt to do this. I spent seven years earning the two diplomas I have now. They sit in a box somewhere. This strategy isn’t likely to succeed. Neither is the second option – being gifted an honorary doctorate. I suppose I will have to wait and see if some university values my contributions to the liberty movement or my literary achievements enough for recognition.

BBA, JD, fishing tackle, etc.

I’m leaning towards option three – claiming or manufacturing a PhD. This is a very popular trend. Americans by the thousands are buying degrees online from diploma mills. Some use these credentials for fraudulent or criminal purposes. Not me. I’m putting my fraud out there now, before the fact. Nothing to hide. And for the degree I want I think I’ve already done the required research and work.

Some college professors admit that many of the “fake” degrees are not so far off the mark anyway. Many who pass successfully through “real” schools come out as dumb as they went in.

Here is my current idea. I may look through the political theory class offerings at MIT’s free course website and see how my experience and skills stack up. I may need a little legitimate brushing up. Then I will simply grant myself a title and print up a diploma. It can keep its predecessors company in that box – if I can find it …

As a Doctor of Law I can already proclaim myself “Dr. Lovett.” I do not but I might. I just might. Let’s just say I’m a JD, PhD (ABD).

All Bear Dissertation …

Anarchy Is Better Than No Government At All

30 Monday Nov 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Alan Watson, anarchy, attorneys, chaos, crime, education, evil, freedom, Golden Rule, government, J.R.R. Tolkien, law, legal theory, libertarians, life, Natural Law, Natural Rights, Perrin Lovett, philosophy, political science, politics, UGA

Some years ago I landed in what for me was probably the perfect legal position of employment. I took a job out of law school as a law clerk with a Georgia court. Law clerks review case file, do research and make recommendations to their judges.

My tenure went far beyond the norm. I was afforded the opportunity to wear many hats – each of which fitted me perfectly. I was able to indulge in a great breadth and depth of research with some publication to boot. I was granted the more prestigious title of Staff Attorney. I was also a registered lobbyist, working occasionally in pursuit of projects concerning the judiciary. I even filled in a few times on the bench.

Gravitating naturally towards research and writing and having almost total freedom with my time I began to explore additional opportunities of academic nature. My great interest is in freedom in and out of legal and political systems. I am a theorist. I learned towards some hybrid between legal theory and political philosophy.

The American Bar Association views a J.D. as the equivalent of a PhD for teaching purposes. Most non-law schools hold a different view. I realized I might benefit from another, specialized graduate degree. My choices as I saw them were either a Master of Law or LLM (in law a Master’s degree comes after the doctorate – yes, backwards) or a PhD in poly sci.

My school of choice, based on both reputation and logistics, was the University of Georgia. I had my own strict criteria concerning any entry into these programs.

The only LLM program in the world which interested me was at UGA. It was a directed study of comparative legal theories under the esteemed base master of such philosophy, Dr. Alan Watson. The only PhD I would consider was in political theory or philosophy and, with a concentration in natural law and libertarian/anarchist views.

I demanded, or would have, freedom to explore my own paths. I also included teaching experience as a must have.

My quest never got very far. In short order life dictated I abandon my beloved job and move to a less than desirable locale, practicing less than desirable law. Thus began my professional “downfall.” I ended up, for a brief time, a miserable prosecutor. When I could no longer stand that I entered private practice. Several were my shinning moments but I never regained even a shadow of my former fit and happiness.

Everything happens for a reason. Today, through my writing, I am finally able to pick up where I left off nearly a decade ago. This time, it’s my way on my own by necessity. One, I doubt there is any organized poly sci department in America which would or could house me. That’s fine – times have changed. Today we have YouTube and Udemy. Two, Alan Watson retired and took with him the last vestige of true legal study in the country. Again, I’m on my own. Autodidact or die …

I visited Watson’s office a few times back the. It was my intention to interview him and to be interviewed myself to check compatibility. Per my usual laziness I always showed up unannounced. He was never in. I have never met the man. Perhaps that all was a sign. My little daughter did accompany me on one visit – we had a great time – as such the trip was anything but a waste.

The political science department did receive me for an arranged visit. I toured the facility and we had a good discussion. There was a real chance things might have worked out. Nearly all the faculty members were “liberals” but they seemed to tolerate my extremism rather well. They were open to my ideas of a very loosely structured curriculum and my desire to teach while I worked. They also deemed an attorney in the department a plus. But, as I said, life intervened.

On my afore-mentioned tour I passed many faculty office doors. Many were closed. One was covered in signs and stickers. One of the stickers read: “Anarchy is better than no government at all.” That stuck in my jumbled mind. I think I used it as a title once …

“Anarchy” has various meanings to different people. Of late the term has been used to describe somewhat disruptive protestors of modern socio-economic life. These, to me, appear more like pro-communist or anti-capitalist activists than anything else. Communism is in my mind the polar opposite of anarchy. Then again, I don’t have a monopoly on the word. I suppose this crowd is descended from the mad bomb throwers of yesteryear.

Tolkien, a hero of mine, described his own political philosophy as anarchism. The specifically rejected the bomber disposition; rather, he merely wanted to leave others alone in exchange for equal treatment. This position is as close to my own as any.

Anarchy and “no government” as the door sticker alluded are often used synonymously. However, I don’t think they are one and the same.

Many consider anarchy the equivalent of chaos. To them it is the complete absence of any controls, political or societal, and could only lead to pandemonium. Their views are understandable. For 10,000 years we have been trained to accept some degree of authority outside of ourselves and over us. As society has evolved (or fallen) government and society have also become synonymous. They are not.

One can speak of the American or French or Japanese cultures and traits without the slightest regard for their respective governments. Government did not create the beauty of the natural world. Nor does it bring happiness to small family gatherings. Though they might claim otherwise, politicians had nothing to do with the development of symphony, football, pizza or the quiet enjoyment of an evening cigar.

Anarchy does represent a form of governance. It is one that stems from the natural freedom of association between civilized people. Heavy-handed policies, tactics, and laws are most unnatural. Too many repeat the phrase “government is a necessary evil.” At least they acknowledge the evil but the institution is just that – evil but unnecessary.

Think of anarchy as “Golden Rule” government. Each affords the other respect and vows not to violate the other’s rights and freedoms. Anarchy is freedom. Freedom is happiness.

Yes, not all people are civilized. Criminality is a continuing cost of original sin. Somewhere in time someone postulated the state’s main purpose was to protect the good people from the bad. History shows this premise is a total failure. Governments are typically the worst violators of freedom and dignity. They also have the nasty habits of coercing decent people into supporting and paying for their depravity and of criminalizing private attempts to disrupt real criminal activity.

In the absence of such retarded controls the free would be able to – individually or in concert – using their strength and conscious – shame, disrupt, or terminate undesirable elements.

Other things government is supposed to do, but which it can’t do well and did not invent, are better left to private cooperation. Roads, schools and defense are all possible without state intervention. And they all predate government.

Many a good, libertarian man I know have said to me (almost in desperation) “you have to have some government!” No, I do not. I have reached a point where I am content to manage my own affairs and relations. Perhaps they real mean “they have to have government.” They don’t. It’s the conditioning of 10,000 years at work which convinces them otherwise.

Anarchy isn’t better than no government. It is the best government.

Google.

Note: I realized upon finishing this one that it’s as much about me as my pet philosophy. The two seem intertwined. Funny. I don’t care much for structure and tend to live out a life of personal anarchy. I have to admit that for all the foibles it works out pretty well.

Natural Origins of Self-Defense

21 Thursday Mar 2013

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

10 Commandments, 11th Commandment, aggressor, American, Aristotle, banksters, Bible, Catechism, Catholic Church, Cato, Christ, Christians, Chuck Baldwin, Cicero, civil government, Codex Justinianus, Confucius, Constitution, criminal, David Kopel, Declaration of Human Rights, Declaration of Independence, duty, Eastern, Exodus, God, government, Hitler, Hobbes, Jesus, John, John Locke, justice, King George III, law, leviathan, Liberty, man, Matthew, Michael Grant, money-lenders, murder, Natural Law, Nicomachean Ethics, NRA, On Duties, oppression, Paul, Peter, Plato, political science, political theory, Pope John Paul II, Proverbs, religion, rights, Roman Empire, Roman Law, Roman Republic, Romans, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Second Amendment, self-defense, society, Summa Theologica, sword, The People, The Republic, Timothy, tyranny, U.N., victim, vigilante, weapons, Western

This is the first in a new series, an expansion of my both my Natural Law column and Second Amendment and related columns. Here, I briefly examine the ancient and eternal theories behind the basic rights which gave rise to the doctrine enshrined in the Second Amendment.

Legal practitioners and law and political science scholars, along with the general public, many politicians, and the media, often make the common mistake of looking only to the text of the Constitution (State or federal) or recent court cases in order to gain perspective into the meaning and/or application of the Second Amendment (and related State protections). While government protection of our rights is vital (the only reason for government), rights do not come from government.

My examination here is theoretic in nature and, thus, seeks out existential sources which provide both definition and supporting argumentative and empirical evidence which are fixed throughout history and across all geographic areas. Of course, as my ultimate view is towards the American experience, I will pay closer attention to sources from Western civilization.

The Bible is replete with approval of self-defense. “If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” 1 Timothy 5:8. This would seem to encompass the responsibility to keep one’s family safe to the extent possible. “If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.” Exodus 22:2-3. This provision is the basis for the common-law doctrine against burglary, originally extended to night-time attacks. The matter of daylight adds an interesting perspective. Again, this passage addresses a thief, not a would-be murderer of rapist. It is divine commentary on the value of human life over mere possessions when an opportunity exists to examine the intent of a criminal. While it is not a prohibition against using force to deter a thief, the provision indicates the Lord’s wish that force not exceed the attendant circumstantial need.

Paul continues this theme of limited aggression in Romans 12:19: “Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.'” Again, God does not seem opposed to immediate use of force to deter violence but, once danger has passed, he commands that we leave judgment to him. This is backed by the Old Testament: “Do not say, ‘I will repay evil’; wait for the Lord, and he will deliver you.” Proverbs 20:22. Again, for Christians, after the fact of a crime, the matter is God’s to handle. This is the basis for a general prohibition against vigilante justice.

In Romans 13, often mis-cited as a justification for any and all government action being divine, Paul extolls the virtues of political agencies instituted in God’s Name. When such an entity exists, then it has God’s authority to pursue prosecution of criminal matters. I refuse to accept that this concept applies to all governments – I doubt God approved of Hitler’s action, for instance. Rev. Chuck Baldwin, http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/, has extensively commented on this subject – http://www.romans13truth.com/.

Jesus Christ, himself, tacitly endorsed armed defense: “And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.” Luke 22:36. I say “tacitly” because of the caveats Jesus placed on the use of force, essentially limiting it to only urgent circumstances. Christ urged us to “turn the other cheek” when possible. Matthew 5:39. He also admonished Peter to sheath his sword while repairing the injure Peter had inflicted with his sword. John 18:11. Jesus, while defending the 10 Commandments, issued an 11th: “love one another.” John 13:34. The Son’s words places strict constraints on the Father’s allowance of the use of force. It does not foreclose the concept.

(The ultimate Defender. Google.)

Jesus only once resorted to the use of force, personally. When He discovered the money-changers (the banksters of their time) abusing the Holiness of the Temple, Jesus violently drove them away. John 2:15. This underscores the possibility of defense as an immediate solution, without resort to formal authority or the eventual actions of the Lord. The Church has formally detailed both the right to such defense as well as the moral duty of such action in need. “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm.” Catechism of the Catholic Church (“CCC”): 2265 (emphasis added)(see also CCC: 1909).

The Church also commands dignity be afforded to the human body, generally: “This dignity entails the demand that he should treat with respect his own body, but also the body of every other person, especially the suffering” CCC: 1004. While this backs the general prohibition against unlawfully harming others, it also reminds the Believer to respect even his enemy and attempt to limit his forcible response to criminal activity as far as possible to minimize harm.

“… [I]n the case of legitimate defence, in which the right to protect one’s own life and the duty not to harm someone else’s life are difficult to reconcile in practice. Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defence. The demanding commandment of love of neighbour, set forth in the Old Testament and confirmed by Jesus, itself presupposes love of oneself as the basis of comparison: ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’ (Mk 12:31). Consequently, no one can renounce the right to self-defence out of lack of love for life or for self.” Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangeliun Vitae (The Gospel of Life), 1995.

The eminent scholar, David Kopel, has documented the general agreement among Eastern Religions along these ideas. In his review of Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism, and Buddhism, Kopel explodes common myths that these religions do not allow for proper use of self-defense. David B. Kopel. “Self-Defense in Asian Religions” Liberty Law Review 2 (2007): 79, 80-81 (http://works.bepress.com/david_kopel/20).

Kopel’s expose is excellent. He also touches on the Eastern version of Baldwin’s critique of Romans 13: “Although Confucianism, like most other religions, has been used by tyrants to claim that revolution is immoral, Confucius himself ordered a revolution against an oppressive regime.” Id, at 163. Only the “religion” of the State would decree that the government is above the Natural Law.

Commenting on Exudus 2, above, Saint Thomas Aquinas said, “it is much more lawful to defend one’s life than one’s house. Therefore neither is a man guilty of murder if he kills another in defense of his own life.” Aquinas, Summa Theologica.

“If a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists, ‘it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense.’ Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense in order to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s life than of another’s.” Id.

Plato noted that when one acts in true self-defense, taken as a natural right, one may actually do the criminal perpetrator (in addition to the victim and society) a service: if the criminal survives, he may reflect on his wrongdoing positively. Plato, The Republic, The Problem of Justice. Plato’s great student, Aristotle, agreed. Aristotle noted that a true case of self-defense is not necessarily a voluntary action. Thus, any suffering from the act of defense may be attributed to the aggressor and not the defender. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics.

The possession of weapons and their defensive usage, though regulated, was allowed in both the Roman Republic and the Empire. “We grant to all persons the unrestricted power to defend themselves, so that it is proper to subject anyone, whether a private person or a solider … to immediate punishment in accordance with the authority granted to all [up to, and including, death, if warranted].” Codex Justinianus 3.27.1. The Romans regarded the right to use weaponry in defense as implicit to the right itself.

The mighty Cicero opined: “There exists a law, not written down anywhere, but inborn in our hearts; a law which comes to us not by training or custom or reading but by derivation and absorption and adoption from nature itself; a law which has come to us not from theory but from practice, not by instruction but by natural intuition. I refer to the law which lays it down that, if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right.” Cicero, “In Defence of Titus Annus Milo,” Selected Speeches of Cicero, Michael Grant translation, 1969. Again, the esteemed David Kopel gives excellent analysis to this ancient Natural Law position in The Sword and the Tome, America’s 1st Freedom, NRA, 2009.

Cicero’s titanic predecessor, the black-robed Cato, made an interesting analogy along the lines of Jesus’s act of retribution noted above (as noted by Cicero himself): Cato was asked by an ambitious Roman, “What is the most profitable about property?” Cato answered, “To raise cattle with great success.” The young man then asked, “What is the second most profitable?” Cato answered, “Raising cattle with moderate success.” The inquirer pressed again, “The third most profitable?” “Raising cattle with little success.” Finally, the young man cut to his presupposed profession, “How about money-lending?” Cato answered (somewhat in advance of Jesus), “How about murder?” Cicero, On Duties.

I by no means equate money-lending or banking with murder but it appears the subject was considered by multiple ancient sources. It seems the evil of the banksters in as eternal as natural law. Defense against the predation of this wicked class may be something to consider.

Later political theorists expounded the virtue and necessity of self-defense. John Locke described self-defense as the first among Natural Rights. Locke, Second Essay on Civil Government. Hobbes concurred in this assertion, regardless of the state of any society. Hobbes, Leviathan, 1651. Even the craven and generally useless United Nations begrudgingly attempted to acknowledge this fundamental truth: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.” Universal Declaration of Human Rights, U.N. General Assembly, Article 12, December 10, 1948.

In the earliest American tradition, we find acknowledgment of the Natural Law (before the adoption of the Second Amendment). The Declaration of Independence (1776) begins: “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” (Emphasis added). The Declaration then enumerates the crimes of King George, among them many of which might be defended against under the doctrine explained herein.

(In case of emergency only. Google.)

Again, self-defense is a God-given, eternal right. It is also a duty, one to be exercised only in dire need and with a grave sense of responsibility. As with all matters of Natural Law, man-made legislation must attempt as closely as humanly possible to approximate the divine purposes of the Law. In the next installment of this series, I intend to examine more ancient legislation regarding weapons and self-defense, specifically Roman Law.