-Caveat Lector- http://www.zolatimes.com/V5.24/love_affairs.html Telling the State About Your Love Affairs by Pierre Lemieux Why would the state be interested in your unhappy love affairs? This is not a hypothetical question. As can be easily verified [1], a Canadian resident who wants to own or borrow any kind of firearm must fill out a form of which question 19f reads: "During the past two years, have you experienced a divorce, a separation, a breakdown of a significant relationship, job loss or bankruptcy?" This is not the only intrusive question. No. 19d asks: "During the past five years, have you threatened or attempted suicide, or have you been diagnosed or treated by a medical practitioner for depression, alcohol, drug or substance abuse, behavioural problems, or emotional problems?" These questions have to be answered every five years. A note says: "If you answer YES to any of the questions . . . please provide details on a separate page." This will trigger an investigation, with probably more questions, and in case of 19d, a likely request for a medical or psychological report. Under sections 106 and 109 of the Firearms Act [2], a person who "knowingly makes a statement orally or in writing that is false or misleading, or knowingly fails to disclose any information" is committing a crime punishable by a maximum of five years in jail. Laws are not flower-children wishes. In George Lucas's THX 1138, individuals confidently confess their anguish to the caring state. In Patrick McGoohan's The Prisoner, the villagers look like peaceful Canadians. I'm kidding, of course. (My readers who want to give their opinions on this issue, including to the highest authorities, may do so at [3].) But, if you will, let us pursue our investigation. The official reason why the Canadian state wants to know so much about its subjects' personal problems relates to public health concerns, especially suicide risks. But just because a reason is official does not mean that it is true. Indeed, in this case, we should look for some other motivation. Consider. From 1977 (the year of the first major long-gun control legislation in Canada) to 1997 (last year available), the proportion of suicides committed with firearms dropped from 38 percent to 22 percent; yet, the total number of suicides per year increased by 11 percent (see the official statistics at [4]). During the same period, the proportion of homicides committed with firearms decreased from 38 percent to 36 percent, and while the proportion committed with long guns has dropped, the proportion committed with handguns, which have been controlled since 1934, doubled from 23 percent to 46 percent. Obviously, some substitution has been going on, seriously undermining the impact of gun control. Moreover, the homicide data doesn't take into account the deaths and injuries caused by the gradual, practical prohibition of self-defense over the years. As for the rate of firearm accidental deaths, it is small and has been decreasing regularly since before the 1977 controls. If questioning firearm owners about their private lives stemmed from a genuine concern for people's welfare, you would expect three developments. First, the state would make sure that its monitoring does not actually lead to more depressions as some individuals may refuse to seek, or delay seeking, professional help for this very reason; but the state is apparently not interested in this issue. Second, all states would adopt the same, demonstrably useful, questioning since, after all, foreign bureaucrats and politicians are neither less intelligent nor less caring than their Canadian counterparts. Third, there would be more questions or questions more directly related to the statistical probability of suicide or murder — for instance, about the applicant's religion and race (Canadian Indians and Eskimos are four times more likely to commit suicide than other Canadians). Why don't states do this if, as they say, it could save only one life? There are many answers. Perhaps some know that these measures don't save lives on a net basis. Or perhaps saving lives is not the goal of states. Or perhaps a state will simply impose as much control as the market will bear. Even if you believe in public health, any of these answers suggests that you adopt another model of state action than pure benevolence. The Search for Control What then is the state's interest in having individuals tell the police about their unhappy love affairs, or forfeit their right to (legally) own firearms? One hypothesis explains such surveillance better than a genuine concern for popular welfare. Suppose that what the state wants is as much power and control over individuals as possible. Suppose that increasing state power becomes especially urgent when technology provides individuals with new opportunities for escaping state control, or when anti-state pockets of resistance become more likely. What will the state do? The state will have an increased need for surveillance of, and information about, its subjects. Knowing the emotional circumstances of law-abiding firearm owners (at least 10 percent of adults in Canada) is potentially useful, but questions such as the ones on the firearm license form will serve a broader purpose: they will accustom people to answer intrusive questions from authorities. Introducing similar questions for drivers' licenses, professional licenses, and other permits will be easier in the future. If you are a would-be totalitarian state's official, you will realize that the potentially most dangerous individuals are found among the most original or eccentric. People with steady jobs and no entrepreneurial spirit, unadventurous individuals who stick with their wives, go through life with little anguish and intensity, and don't engage in minority activities like hunting — these individuals are not very dangerous for the state. Of course, I am not criticizing quiet and dull individuals: what they do is their own business, they may have as much fun as accountants, and sticking with one's wife may not be a bad idea, after all. If you are the state, you will mistrust unusual activities, and try to make them more costly. At the very least, you will want to gather more information from, and exert more surveillance on, practitioners of such activities. You will want to disarm the populace, to prevent any future temptation for an armed uprising — the more so if you control people for their own good, and don't like bloodshed. And you will especially want to disarm those individuals who don't like to answer questions about their personal lives. Perhaps more important than literal disarmament is disarming individuals morally, in their heads. Take away any sentiment of individual sovereignty, make individuals feel that everything of value to them is a privilege granted by the benevolent authorities. Which would be a more natural means to achieve these goals than for the police to question individuals about their love affairs or "behavioral problems"? Well, perhaps you can add question 19e: "During the past five years, do you know if you have been reported to the police or social services for violence, threatened or attempted violence, or other conflict in your home or elsewhere?" Then, you make sure — or as sure as you can be, for nothing is perfect — that individuals are either completely atonic and quiet, or else forever fearful that some neighbor will snitch on them for some reason, that a social worker will knock at the door, or that the police will come to search — or for an "inspection," which is the Newspeak word to say "warrantless search." As Robert Wright suggests in Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny (Pantheon Books, 2000 — my review at [5]), beware of "saying hateful things about whole national, ethnic, or religious groups, or even about other people." Turn people into peace loving, prisoner-type villagers. This is just a little economic model of what a would-be totalitarian state would do, not through grand conspiracy, but just following its internal logic. Isn't it interesting that it accounts so well for the Canadian firearm questionnaire? Coincidence, surely. Be seeing you! Links [1] http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/forms_assistance/PDFs/Samples/PAL-en.pdf. [2] http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/legal/pdf/act-en.pdf. [3] http://www.pierrelemieux.org/loveaffairs.html. [4] http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/research/publications/stats/pdf/updated-en.pdf. [5] http://www.independent.org/tii/content/pubs/review/books/tir53_wright.html. Pierre Lemieux is an economist and Visiting Professor at the Université du Québec à Hull. E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -30- from The Laissez Faire City Times, Vol 5, No 24, June 11, 2001 <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
