Quote of the day–Ronald Reagan

Of the four wars in my lifetime none came about because the U.S. was too strong.

Ronald Reagan
[This afternoon on my way back to my hidden underground bunker in the Seattle area I listened to A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles by Thomas Sowell.  Kevin gives a more complete review than I would ever consider but one thing in the book jumped out at me that reminded me of this Reagan quote. In the unconstrained vision nations enter into war because of misunderstandings many of which are because one side or both became convinced that their neighbor was preparing to go to war against them. Hence, in the eyes of those who adhere to the unconstrained vision, one of the ways to prevent war is to disarm.

As Kevin points out those of the unconstrained persuasion are as much or more interested in intent than in hard data. Does that remind you of any politicians you know?

In the unconstrained vision the definitions of the most basic words have different meanings from those of a constrained vision viewpoint. Some definitions are not merely different–they are the complete opposite (for example see the video I linked to here). This is why, for them, “freedom” and/or “economic justice” can entail forced redistribution of wealth without a hint of irony.

For them, criminals can be understood and reformed. It was the fault of society/poverty/”economic-injustice” which creates criminals and by fixing those problems and taking away the tools of their trade there will be less (or zero) crime. As an example just last month Paul Helmke said gun violence is one component of the total violence. This, of course, presumes that violent crime committed with firearms is totally independent of other types of violent crime. It assumes there will be no substitution of other weapons if firearms are less available (and with the victims disarmed firearms are less likely to be needed by large predators). In their minds people like Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dahmer, and Richard Kuklinski (now there was one scary SOB–Ted Bundy was a pussy cat compared to him) apparently would not come into being.

That line of thought brought me to gun control and back to Reagan’s quote. What Reagan said in regards to war also applies to gun ownership and criminals. No violent criminal or political tyrant committed his crimes because his victims were too strong.–Joe]


5 thoughts on “Quote of the day–Ronald Reagan

  1. “No violent criminal or political tyrant committed his crimes because his victims were too strong.”
    Excellent, and most people understand this automatically. To wit; my wife feels safer when I’m around. If people believed, on the personal level, what some believe on the political level, then they’d feel safer walking a dark street in the inner city alone, rather than with a group. The group would pose more of a potential threat to criminals, thereby provoking attack. Heh. So remember all you small, vulnerable sorts; always walk alone, for safety.

  2. I remember hearing President Reagan say that, although I don’t remember when.

    Reagan was elected when I was in the 4th grade, and left office when I was a Senior in High School, so that’s the time frame for me.

    Even back then when I was young and dumb(er), that phrase made perfect sense… bullies don’t pick on the strong guys in class, they pick on the weak ones.

    Mental disorders lead to the inability to comprehend simple truisms such as this.

  3. “There’s more than one way to skin a cat” as the old saying goes.

    Look at the Chinese. Without firing a single bullet, they now have the ability to bring us to our knees via our financial system. Pretty clever, eh?

  4. Doubtful, Ubu.

    If the Chinese ever tried to “foreclose” on the US, they’d be told in rather short order, “Screw you, keep your damned teddy bears and lead tainted toys.”

    Wouldn’t matter much WHICH party was in power. It’s neither honorable nor moral to welch on a debt, but Congress would do it.

    And what would the Chinese do? Our credit rating would have ALREADY been trashed by that point, so it wouldn’t really hurt us economically. An economic boycott led by China would at that point hurt THEM worse than US — in absence of the US market overnight, there would be NO ONE who could take up the slack as buyers fast enough. The very same thing that gives China a huge leverage in our markets is ALSO a millstone around their neck if that market disappears; they are SPECIALIZED in large part to produce for America. . . the other major hitters in the markets are at a comfortable market share of consumption, and wouldn’t need to buy the excess Chinese goods that are, after all, min/maxed for American consumption.

    Then there’s the fact that if the US’s economy hits a REAL crater, the rest of the industrial world is going with it. That’s what “interconnected world economy” means, in the end.

    Western Europe would loudly declaim teh American actions, and about a week later they’d do teh same (led by France — the French are ALWAYS willing to be cold-blooded practitioners of Economic Realpolitik). If cornered, they’d claim that America’s actions forced their hand, to keep a “level playing field”.

    And Chinese kids would starve, the Chinese military would find itself running out of supplies AND needing to put down a restless population. China might get mad about it, but they are NOT global power projectors now, or any time soon. Think back to teh Cuban Missile Crisis — why did Shoeless Nikita swallow that blockade? Because the USSR, despite having forces out on teh blue water, was not TRULY a blue water power projector, but a land power with a minor littoral and sheltered sea navy. . . much like China is now.

    It’s like the old saying, “Owe $100, and the bank owns you. Owe $1,000,000, and you own the bank.” (Keep in mind that adage goes back AT LEAST to $35/oz gold.)

Comments are closed.