Why do we have government? To many this seems a simple question: “Because we do” or “Because we must” seems an obvious answer, but that is not really sufficient. What is the reason for government? How do you define good government? These are questions our mainstream media does not wish to address, because they cause uncomfortable questions to arise. The answers to these questions are often personal: people want government that supplies their wants. They want a government that guarantees them a job, for example, or a standard of living to which they have become accustom to.
To many in our society government exists as a source of goodies to be paid for with the nebulous “appropriated money”. This is the problem, I would say, that is causing our country to go broke. “Entitlements” that cannot be supported, but that people feel, well, entitled to.
All of these entitlements come with strings. For the government to dispense goodies, a bureaucracy must exist to both confiscate the money from the producers to have it to pay for the goodies and to distribute said goodies to the segment of the public that demands them.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
The Declaration of Independence
There is where it begins for me. Locke put it “Life, Liberty, and Ownership of Property” which is a bit less flowery and precludes much of the confiscation of wealth and income that our government is involved in today. It is from this concept, “Life, Liberty, Property” that our Constitution and its Bill of Rights flows. These are the First Principles of the United States of America. How far we have come from them.
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.” -Gerald Ford
I have little use for Ford, but he is spot on with this observation. This is especially true in today’s society when it seems we want so much from government: universal education, universal health care, free prescriptions, a guaranteed standard of living, and so forth. This is, at the end of the day, an unsustainable model. We are seeing it slowly collapsing all over the world. A government big enough to give you everything you want will require everything you have in order to sustain it. In order to keep the free goodies flowing, everyone who is a producer will become a de facto slave of the State.
First principles are important. They are there, whether you formalize them in a document or they are sub-conscious assumptions that underlie your demands on political candidates, Parties, and the State itself. What are your first principles of government? What is the purpose of government to you?
Tags: Political Theory
I don’t mean to nit-pick, but that should be “principles,” not “principals” throughout, including in the title.
The example that I use a lot is that Government is put in place to protect its Citizens from illegitimate force and fraud. It’s there to provide National Security and to maintain the Rule of Law for all of us.
Happy new year, everyone. I hope this year is better for all of you then the last 3 have been for me.
On topic, government is there to protect us from each other.
i hate the word “entitlement” and all it means. The only thing a human being is “entitled” to is their life. They are not entitled to medical care, they are not entitled to a place to live, they are not entitled to a minimum wage, they are not entitled to a job. this entire topic just infuriates me, the daughter of a member of the stinking UAW. i hate the UAW. they destroyed the independent nature of an entire generation of my family. they are despicable evil.
and i’m not sorry for hating them. they are evil and worthy of hate.
@ lobo91:
Sue me. I can’t edit it anymore. Spelling has never been my forte, so run with it like it were spelled correctly. It is a theory piece, anyway.
@ Kirly:
The only thing we are entitle to is life, liberty and the persuit of happiness.
Government should arrange conditions so that its citizenry flourish.
this entails
providing for the common defense
Arranging the economy in such fashion that the average standard of living is as high as posssible
encouraging business to thrive, while preventing it from being our overseer
establishing international trade that works to the betterment of our country, while not being so oppressive to foreign nations as to throttle it
—–…..—–
rewrite….
the governments job is to work for our common good.
@ Kirly:
“Life, Liberty, and Ownership of Property” are all anyone is entitled to from the government. As the man says, it is the defense of these thing that is the reason ofor the existance of government. Only in defense of these things is it legitimate for the government to act. Orur nation was the first (and still one of the few in practice) to say that the government simply couldn’t do some things. Before us, you basically had Divine Right of Kings as the operating political theory in the West (and it was worse in the rest of the world). We said, with our Bill of Rights, that some things were just off limits for the government to do. It doesn’t matter what presumed social good will come of it, the government cannot legitimately do it. This is why I am so vociferious in my defense of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment puts teeth into the Bill of Rights. There are some things you just can’t do to an armed populace. Not without winning a bloody war, anyway.
@ swamprat:
The problem with saying that is that it’s too vague, and can be used to justify almost anything (like mandatory health insurance, for example).
swamprat wrote:
Expand on this. This is the theory behind command economies. Why does the State have the Authority to arrange the Economy? How is that its responsibility? Where does that Authority come from?
I really really really really really hate the term “Nanny State” that is just marketing B.S. from the moonbats that want you to accept living in their Police State which is what a “Nanny State” really is. (Did I say that I really hate the term “Nanny State”??) Nanny has a gun in her handbag. If you don’t take your medicine Nanny will blow your sorry ass away! (Did I mention that I really hate the term “Nanny State”??)
Lay infrastructure and get the hell out of the way.
Maintain identifiable and secure borders, and protect from foreign invasion, economic, social, and physical. Oh, and rescind EO 12333.
Iron Fist wrote:
Speling skilz iz over rated any whoz.
The incoming GOP House leadership is on the right track by requiring bills to cite a Constitutional suthority as justification, but they need to go a step further.
They need to cite a justification under one of the 18 enumerated powers listed in Article I, Section 8.
swamprat wrote:
That is what The Founders meant by “Promoting the General Welfare” that past and current lawmakers have bastardized to satisfy their own political goals and “We The People” be damned if we get in their way.
@ lobo91:
100%. If you can’t do that in your sleep, then you don’t need to be proposing laws in the US Congress. And most of them are far less veresed in Constitutional Law than I am. I would include supposed Constitutional Law Scholar in Chief Obama in that mix. I doubt he even thinks in such a mode. To him the State has no practical restrictions on it whatsoever. They believe that they should, at the very least, be able to do as they please until a Judge makes them stop (one of the House Democrats said essentially that over the issue of reading the Constitution). That ain’t the way it should be done.
Rodan wrote:
Try to tell that to Obungler and the libs…
@ Da_Beerfreak:
“Promote the General Welfare” has been stretched way out of proportion. The State is tyhere for War and interstates, but, frankly, it isn’t the Job of the Government to make Jobs, for example. The government would serve us best by getting out of the way and letting the free market create the jobs. If Obama had done that instead of his massive, unprecedented Keyensian “stimulus” we’d be a lot better off.
Iron Fist wrote:
It is an obligation, not the governments’ right. The biggest way is through trade agreements. And those should involve tariffs on countries who wish to trade with us. This is a form of “protectionism” and is not in good favor. Tarriffs can be high in areas where we have domestic competitition, and wish to “protect” those industies… but over protection can lead to inferior domestic products. No “protection” (as in tariffs and fees, and import standards) can result in us being subjected to unfair and preditory trade practices.
It seems to me that the question is, is the government an exetension
of us & therefore our servant, or are we chattles of the State?
Do they serve at out pleasure, or is it our duty to conform to their dictates?
“First Principles of Government”
principles before personalities
It’s Neck n’ Neck,
remember…
A vote for Bagua is a vote for everything good and wholesome in the world!™*
* in my not so humble opinion.
@ swamprat:
That really comes under “interstate commerce” as the original concept of America was as United States, plural. It was to regulate things so that Georgia didn’t put tarrifs on imports from Maine, and so forth. That clearly allows for America to deal with say, China, through a united trade policy set by the Federal Government, just as we deal with China through a United military policy through our Federal military. I get nervous when I see words like “arrange the economy”, because that smacks of a command economy, and command economies have never worked anywhere they have been implemented.
Iron Fist wrote:
Government jobs are make-work, as the government is an industry with no real “product”.
Industry is jobs. Small industry, or large industry, commerce is the final tally.
We have vilified industry, regulated it (often too highly), invited foreign products, set standards and taxes at an oppressive level..
…. and now we want to know where the jobs went!
@ RIX:
That is the essential question. What is the relationship of the Individual to the State. That is the core of the fundemental transformation Obama wants to bring to America. That is what ObamaCare is all about. Once you have people dependant on the State for essential services like health care, you have the power to tell them what they can and cannot do down to any level you choose.
@ swamprat:
I agree completely. Over-regulation and “Free” trade are where our manufacturing base went. A service economy can only function if there is a manufacturing base to Create the wealth necessary to keep the service part of the economy humming.
RIX wrote:
We are Citizens not Subjects. The Government works for us.
DC Town is out of control and needs to be brought back into line. If we can’t do that peacefully, then…
@ Iron Fist:
How many service and gambling civilizations have there been and how long?
@ Iron Fist:
Don’t know about command economy
“keep us from getting raped by foreign business”
…we should have foreing trade, but it should be to OUR (the citizens’) advantage…versus the Governments’ advantage
And social services are wonderful…. but they should be a byproduct, not the raison de etre
@ lobo91:
got it
@ Iron Fist:
Yup, we are headed that way. It seems like that to Obama & his ilk the key is to get more & more people tax exempt & on some kind of public assistance.
They always use the meme “on the backs of the poor” whenever tax
cuts are proposed.
They have people thinking that it is a zero sum game, any gain
by anybody is a propotionate loss to someone else.
If you rob Peter to pay Paul, Paul will never complain.
@ Iron Fist:
Exactly!
The governments’ job is to remove stumbling blocks and keep everything running smoothly.
RIX wrote:
Do that long enough and you get a lot of sore Peters…
@ Iron Fist:
So has the Commerce Clause.
If I were the Speaker, I’d actually go a step further than requiring bills to be justified under one of the enumerated powers.
I’d require the justification to be direct: “If we do x, it will have y effect.”
The worst example I can think of is the justification they used for the Safe and Gun-Free Schools Act, which they claimed was justified by the Commerce Clause as follows:
1. People having guns close to schools makes the schools unsafe.
2. Since the schools are unsafe, people won’t send their kids to them.
3. If people don’t send their kids to school, they won’t be properly educated.
4. If kids aren’t properly educated, they won’t be able to get good jobs.
5. If the kids can’t get good jobs when they grow up, that will have a negative effect on interstate commerce.
I’m pretty sure that if you showed that to James Madison, his reaction would be pretty similar to what Nancy Pelosi said when someone asked her where the Constitution allowed government-run healthcare: “Seriously? Are you serious?”
gov maintains rule of law and enforceability of contracts…
Iron Fist wrote:
Exactly.
Makers and Takers. Makers empower themselves via hard work and effort. Takers are empowered by .gov only after .gov first takes from the Makers.
The Takers and .gov both depend the Makers’ productivity to survive. The Makers only need themselves. (See “going Galt”) to break the abusive cycle.
@ waldensianspirit:
None I can think of, but then how many industrialized civilizations existed before about 200 years ago? New things do come along, and not all our manufacturing is gone. I am a software developer, but what my job bols down to is that I am a highly trained and skilled manufacturer of software. I don’t use machine tools to produce the product that I produce. But the business cycle still exists, and unemplpyment still exists. We’ve been living in a bubble economy since the ninties, and now I think the last of the bubbles has popped. There may still be some deflation to come in the Housing Market, though. How long that will last is anybody’s guess. But what endangers us now ids the over-expansion of government and the over spending/deficit spending bubble and the debt that is tis creating for us.
swamprat wrote:
I want the Government off my back and out of my pocket. It’s that simple.
Any theory of gov’t is premised on a specific understanding of human nature.
In Marxism, human nature is understood to be predatory.
Go back to Plato. He propounded a gov’t of the intellectual/moral aristocracy. There is NO ‘all men are created equal’ premise there.
One’s idea of the role of gov’t cannot exist outside that framework.
State your ‘human nature’ framework, I’ll design the gov’t.
@ Iron Fist:
You did see Obama’s car czar went wild with his “opportunity”
coldwarrior wrote:
That’s one of the few public goods.
Public Good is another concept bastardized by the progressives.
@ Da_Beerfreak:
The way it shoud be, but the left sees that notion as quaint & passe.
They see the perfectability of man as possible.
People like we that frequent here know better.
I think that it was Cardinal Minzente (sp) that asked his Communist
tormentor “Why is it that those of you who try to build Heaven on Earth, create hell?”
@ eaglesoars:
what is the good man?
/test later
@ swamprat:
Command Economy is what the Soviets had. The State controls the means of production (whether the State actually owns the means of production or controls them through regulation is insignificant) and tells it what to produce and when. Hence the name “Command Economy”. That is what the socialists are trying to produce here. That they are trying to produce it by regulations instead of manufacturing famine in the Ukraine is scant comfort. They will destroy our standard of living either way, which is the logical and predictible result of what they are doing. Which is why I say that I think it is what they want to happen. Did you read the VDH piece on how rural California is decaying? That is what they have planned for the entire country.
lobo91 wrote:
Can you imagine the reaction if, the 112th Congress issues once again Letters of Marque against the Somali Pirates?
eaglesoars wrote:
My view of ‘human nature’ is that we all are working for our own best interests. I like Adam Smith’s concept of the invisible hand.
@ lobo91:
Exactly. Pelosie Galore’s reaction was absolutely priceless. And honest. I’ll give her that. She doesn’t think that the Constitution is anything but a scrap f paper that is old and immaterial. What matters is that she gets her jet to fly her to San Fran, and she gets to tell the Little People what to do. I am reading Shelby Foote’s excellent The Civil War: A Narrative and I’ll tell you just from the little I’ve read Jefferson Davis respected his slaves more than the Democrats respect the People. A lot more.
mawskrat wrote:
Oh gawd. Yer talking to a former philosophy major here. (Of course that was before G-d started making dirt. I just discovered Habermas w/in the last few years.)
I wrote a paper arguing that Socrates drank the hemlock for the following reasons:
- his wife was a harridan
- his kids were slackers
- he was never going to be able to pay off his debts
- this way the State would pay for his funeral
Rule of law had nothing to do with it.
My ‘human nature’ take on the whole thing.
@ Macker:
I know what my reaction would be…
[two paws up]
@ Macker:
Wanna go Pirate hunting? I bet if you gave a percentage of the value of the hostage ships rescued you could interest Blackwater in something like that…
Da_Beerfreak wrote:
That’s a fact, but the key for them is to have Peters in the
minority.
Obama took a bad economic situation & willfully made it worse, so
that like any Sophist he could exploit it.
He wants to drag us into a managed economy (Socialism)
@ eaglesoars:
The basic stuff of which socialism is comprised, is not bad material.
The problem lies in the fact that socialism/communism is the perfect tool/trap to use to enslave.
It’s all for good, you see. It is for your good, and their good , and those guys’ good … and if you don’t like it, we will force you to be good ’cause not going along with us means you’re bad….
And the guys “redistributing the wealth” own the keys to the coffers, and they deserve to be treated well, because of all the good they’re doin’, see?
And the damnedable part is that some socialism is necessary.
But too much is like a kid eatting too much candy… eventually he gets sick.
@ lobo91:
Perhaps there would be no need to resort to nuclear weapons to eradicate that threat!
@ waldensianspirit:
Saw it. Totally predictible. If you could audit the Stimulus, you’d no doubt find many “instant millionaires” created by that effort to spread the wealth. Like I said before, I think they are getting the results they really want out of all of this. Obama is a smart man. It is just his goals and aims are not what people think they are…
@ Iron Fist:
We are about to learn that socialism dosen’t work. I have lost count of how many times this makes.
Have to go. I have a limited window of sunny hours and new plexiglass windows for the jeep will not wait.
Later guys.
Iron Fist wrote:
If I were an Insurance Company I would NOT insure any ship passing through Pirate County without an active defense (armed to the teeth) and then see how fast the shipowners get with the program.
eaglesoars wrote:
I disagree. In Marxism, human nature is understood to be perfectible. That is the whole point of the re-education camps, the thought-crime, and so forth. Their goal is the perfection of man according to their precepts.
My theory is based on the fact that mankind is fallen, corrupt, greedy, selfish, etc. That is the formula Capitalism is based on. You can only guide the economy (and only then with the lightet of touches) to produce the most good (highest standard of living) for the most people. Even then, the system isn’t perfect. It is flawed, but you run based on the flas, and compensate where you can. Our entire system of government is based on that concept. That is why the limited and divided government.\ as well as the core of capitalist economics.
@ Da_Beerfreak:
Forgive the former teacher, ok? So. A few questions.
Is human nature to be defined strictly in economic terms?
Smith treated economic activity in the collective. How does human nature support or repudiate this view?
Iron Fist wrote:
Think of the fun they could have with a Q-ship or two…
RIX wrote:
Which won’t work and will only lead to collapse of the Country. Which is what I really think they want anyways.
@ swamprat:
FOOD FIGHT!
Please expand…………
@ Da_Beerfreak:
Yeah, that would work. The US Navy is the best the world has ever seen, but like cops everywhere, they can’t be everywhere. It is up to you to protect yourself. However, misguided weapons control laws will make it hard to make what you want practical. Even US gun control laws won’t let a ship mount a .50 for ship defense, let alone the cannon (or rockets) really required for ship defense. You have to change the mindset of the world before that is going to happen. It is the realistic take on the situation, but no one wants to stomach the realistic approach…
@ Da_Beerfreak:
Of course it is. You can’t rebuild something without tearing it down first…
@ lobo91:
See, that is what I’m saying. And real merchant ships with gatling guns and light cannon. The Somoli pirates aren’t exactly Black Beard with real warships or anything…
@ Iron Fist:
No. Human BEHAVIOR is understood to be perfectable.
And I maintain that this very subtle difference in your wording and mine speak to the crux.
Marxism does not distinguish between behavior and nature. Sort of the Alan Turing ‘artifical intellignce’ puzzle.
Iron Fist wrote:
In international waters, the insurance companies have more to say about than the US. Insurance Companies would rather they not fight in case they get sued. Some world hey?
must do some kitchen work.
brb
eaglesoars wrote:
Damn if I know. In this text based forum I try to keep it as simple as I can so painting with a broad brush becomes the rule for my commenting. How’s that for a wide stroke of my brush??
I also liked James Madison’s view on self-interest from reading the Federalist Papers. Again in a broad sense.
@ Nevergiveup:
True, but ships have to come into port, don’t they? I’ve never understood our authority to stop drug-smuggling vessels on the high seas, either. That wasn’t as big a thing when I took International Law as it is now, or maybe I didn’t pay enough attention when I took the class…
Iron Fist wrote:
Pull the insurance and the shipowners will go screaming to Congress, UN, whoever it takes to get things changed. Nothing will be done until folks start to feel a lot more pain…
@ eaglesoars:
Mmmm, it could be you have a point. I can’t recall that they distinguished between the two. But Marxism is athiestic in religion, so I’d have no problem with it being behaviorist in psychology. Behaviorists don’t distinguish between behavior and anything more fundamental, either. Neither system posits a “soul”, so they wouldn’t see mankind as having a “fallen” nature, or any default nature beyond animal instinct.
Iron Fist wrote:
Did you hear about the latest complaint against the Russian’s??
They captured a group of Somali pirates, tied the up real good, put them back into their little boat, and then sank the little boat.
@ Da_Beerfreak:
Works for me. Other than them being our enemies, I generally like the Russians
@ Da_Beerfreak:
I believe that too. They are modern Sophists, either create or exploit a situation to advance your agenda.
In this case I see their agenda as a managed economy & a punished
middle class.
@ Da_Beerfreak:
The only thing I would have done differently is to put a pig or two into the boat with them…
Da_Beerfreak wrote:
“We let them go”
lobo91 wrote:
A couple slices of bacon would do the trick and not be missed at breakfast.
Da_Beerfreak wrote:
Sounds to me like the Russians took care of business. And to follow up on your comment about the “Little Boat”, that is very true.
.50 cal would not really be needed, a couple of M-60-E4′s per ship would do quite nicely. Unship them and lock them into a STANAG grade arms locker once you enter controlled waters and the problem would go away very shortly!
lobo91 wrote:
Then rescue the pigs and have some pork BBQ.
lobo91 wrote:
Waste of good pig.
Try this, rig a hose and pump the CHT tanks into the little boat.
Brick wrote:
Even better.
Government’s role is to create an environment in which the maximum number of people are able to provide for their own needs.
Yes, as I’ve said before, there are things government at some level needs to provide- Police & fire protection, a military, courts, and schools (possibly, and if so, only at a state/local level. Even better, simply provide funds for schools and let the parents decide where to send little Johnny & little Susie) comprise a fair portion of those things.
Nevergiveup wrote:
Armed merchant ships would be denied entry into most ports. And merchant ships run absolutely minimal crews, so adding a trained fighting crew in addition would crush profits.
Mike C. wrote:
Yes but arms can be hidden if so inclined. But yes the cost of extra personal and/or trained personal would escalate costs. The price of Freedom?
@ RIX:
They don’t want to punish the middle class, they want to destroy it. Think back to Obama’s racist Church, and its manifesto of principles that it had on the web when Obama started running for President. They specifically had a disavowal of “Middle-classedness” and a rejection of middle-class values in their little diatribe. That is core to understanding Obama. They don’t want a middle class to exist. The want their class, the Wealthy Elite, to rule over an empire of semi-slaves who are all equal. They want to bring us the “gift” of equality of poverty. We are out of our place when we desire upward mobility in exchange for our hard work. That is their first principle of government: they rule by right that is not dissimilar to the Divine Right of Kings, they just have to manipulate the peasantry a little more. The MFM supplies the means, if it is allowed to go unchallenged.
Iron Fist wrote:
yer gettin there!
@ Nevergiveup:
If it was doable and cut overall costs, it would have already been done.
Mike C. wrote:
I see your point. As long as the cost of having Pirates around don’t eat up the profits, the shippers will just put up with them.
The purpose of the government is to govern in accordance with the Constitution.
The purpose of the citizen is to protect the Constitution from the government.
Mike C. wrote:
It is doable, but would raise overall costs and would require the Western Democracies to grow a pair, and this is where the rubber hits the road.
I’m watching “Stripes” on TV. Ya know what I like about it, it’s so realistic?????? Just kidding.
@ Iron Fist:
I have a stlightly different take on that. To Jerimiah Wright, ‘middle class’ means ‘white’.
Black liberation theology is rooted in Marxism. To Wright and his ilk, ‘middle class’ is a siren song piped by the white man to entice the black man from his roots.
They want NO class. Their ‘social justice’ demands it.
Which someohow ignores that house the congregation bought Wright.
Nevergiveup wrote:
It’s a classic. I watched it a couple weeks ago.
Nevergiveup wrote:
That’s why it’s Russia, China, and India that are taking out the most Pirates nowadays.
@ Iron Fist:
I have to agree that, that is the goal long term
An enemy of a totalitarian state is a healthy & large middle
class.
when Michelle said “America is a downright mean country” I doubt
that she meant the wealthy elite or the poor. She meant
the despised Middle Class who she sees as selfish & raaaaacist.
Da_Beerfreak wrote:
Yup
lobo91 wrote:
Yup–I presume it was meant to be anti-war and Military, like Dr Strangelove was suppose to be, but they are both great movies and i bet most Military types love them both.
@ Iron Fist:
VDH ‘s article now saved to favorites.
@ Nevergiveup:
The most realistic part is John Larroquette’s character…
@ Da_Beerfreak:
They are exploiting an economic crisis to advance a socialist agenda.
Sophists.
lobo91 wrote:
Now that’s a shot at Officers. I know a shot when i see one, and that’s a shot!
A lazy day.
Been watching “The Pacific”.
If you haven’t seen it, you should.
Nevergiveup wrote:
Nothing gets by you…
lobo91 wrote:
Hey but what about Major T. J. “King” Kong? Now there’s some Officer!
@ Nevergiveup:
Not my field, but I strongly suspect that insurers don’t cover merchant vessels if they’re armed, especially since most countries (western or not) wouldn’t allow them to dock or transit their waters anyway. Without insurance, merchant vessels don’t sail.
Fantasy aside, this is a problem for government action.
eaglesoars wrote:
Exactly. They don’t mind, indeed encourage, the existance of an Elite who have a lifestyle the rest of us cannot hope to aspire to, but they want to destroy the middle where there is social mobility. They don’t want any social mobility, not even among blacks, perhaps particularly among blacks. That’s called “keepin’ it real“, if you know what I mean. Even when they become rich, they are simply ghetto hoods made good. Obama exemplifies this. He’s just a Chicago hood who has made it.
Nevergiveup wrote:
You got that right! He certainly went down with the “ship”:
Macker wrote:
He really nailed it!
Mike C. wrote:
One man’s Fantasy is another man’s Brainstorm…
Da_Beerfreak wrote:
I’d put it, one man’s problem, is another enterprising man’s opportunity. A self-insured carrier, with a US based privately owned port, mebbe specializing in runs through high-risk areas.
@ Brick:
Useful only if you’re shipping to or from the US and then only if the port on the other end of the trip allows you in. And I’m not at all certain the US allows armed merchantmen, either.
And I never heard of a self-insured shipping company. Insuring shipping is perhaps the oldeest major form of insurance.
@ Brick:
Privately owned? IS there such a thing?
eaglesoars wrote:
Well, it would have to be given the state of current US laws. Also it would have to be in a state that allows Class III weapons.
Water cannons, drown the rats if they get too close.
eaglesoars wrote:
This is America. With enough cash, connections, and charisma anything is possible.