Tyranny Grips the World

A while back I discovered that a majority of the "civilized world" thinks that a majority of the world is civilized.  I realized this as I was looking through the comments on a certain web page.  You are probably aware that some guy released design files for a 3D printable gun recently.  It turns out that several groups were working on this, and he happened to be the first to finish.  Well, the web page I was looking at belonged to one of the other groups, and the comments contained an argument over whether printable guns would be a good thing or a bad thing.  Most of the comments expressed the opinion that it was a good thing (as you would expect, most visitors of the site were fans of the project).  A few comments expressed outrage, anger, and other negative emotions at the idea that this group was trying to take away their safety by making a type of gun that could not be effectively regulated by any government.  A guy (who claimed to be...) from Spain described how the gun ban in his country made him feel safer.  He complained that this project would make it too easy for criminals in his country to get guns and that this would interfere with his feeling of safety.  I wrote a response.

I began by calling this guy from Spain out on his selfishness.  He was either unaware, or apathetic that a great deal of people still live under oppressive governments.  While his concern is only for personal safety, there are many people who have neither safety nor freedom.  While easily obtainable guns might slightly endanger this guy's safety (actually, so far no one has gathered conclusive evidence that banning guns reduces violent crime), they will improve the ability of the oppressed masses of the world to gain their own freedom and safety.

So, yesterday I read a Deseret News article that gives actual figures on my claims: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865582058/Survey-finds-religious-freedom-did-not-increase-during-Arab-Spring.html  I found the them appalling.  This quote from the article says it all,

"Because some of the most restrictive countries are very populous, more than 5.1 billion people (74 percent of the world's population) were living in countries with high government restrictions on religion or high social hostilities involving religion, the brunt of which often falls on religious minorities," Pew reported.

 Note that religious freedom is the first freedom.  The article points out that in known history, no democratic form of government has been successful without first having religious freedom.  It turns out that almost three quarters of the population of the world live under oppressive governments that do not even offer the first, and most important, fundamental human right recognized by the minority of the world that is civilized.  If we were viewing our world as outsiders, and we were asked to analyze it based on freedom, we would have to conclude that Earth is an uncivilized world where oppression and tyranny rule the populace, because that is true not just of the majority, but of the vast majority.  Our world is in the grip of tyranny.  What's worse is that the situation is not improving.  Even in the U.S., religious freedom is slowly declining.  From later in the article,

But religious freedom must be a priority for the U.S. administration as well, Farr said, noting ratings in government restrictions and social hostilities toward religion in the United States have moved from a low level in 2009 to a moderate level in 2010 and 2011.

The administration "seems to have lost the conviction that religious freedom is the first freedom," he said.

An outsider looking at the Earth would not just have to conclude that it is in the grip of tyranny, but also that the few pockets of resistance are slowly crumbling to its influence.

One of the worst parts of this story is that supposedly civilized countries often intentionally resist helping those trying to escape tyranny.  Admittedly, their may be some justification for this, given that several democratic countries have had issues with Muslims trying to enforce Sharia law in ways that violate the laws of those countries.  On the other side though, the U.S., who has two countries bordering it, allows people from one (Canada) which is civilized to enter and leave almost at will, while on the other border (Mexico) we try to make it almost impossible for those trying to escape tyranny and oppression from even visiting their families who are already in the U.S.  Right, they can go to the U.S. Consulate there and apply for a visa and so on.  Of course, the fee for applying (which is not refunded of the visa is refused) is more than most people there can afford, the wait in line is typically well over 24 hours, each applicant must have proof that they have even more money in the bank, and the other  requirements are so strict that most people are turned away for trivial things that should not make any difference.  The only people with even a chance are the very rich, who typically do not want to leave, because they are either corrupt government officials, or drug lords who are profiting more by oppressing their own people than they would working an honest job in the U.S.  No wonder most of the world is oppressed.  If "civilized" countries are not even willing to help out their closest neighbors, then how can we call any of the world civilized?

Now about the guns.  Three quarters of the population of the world needs some means of escaping tyranny.  While the U.S. could help the situation by allowing more immigrants from Mexico, we cannot take in the entire population of the oppressed countries of the world.  In fact, all of the free countries in the world do not have room for all of the oppressed people of the world (well, that is not entirely true, but the burden would be too much to handle all at once).  Maybe we could try to overthrow all of the oppressive governments of the world.  While this might be possible, it would probably involve a massive war that would result in widespread destruction, throughout every country in the world.  Also, as the above article points out, if the newly formed governments are not based first on freedom of religion, they will end up being as bad or worse than the original governments.

The best solution is to give the oppressed masses the ability to arm themselves and fight their governments.  3D printed plastic guns are actually an ideal way of doing this.  First, many oppressive regimes have allowed cheap 3D printers to be donated to schools in their countries, so the means of production already exist (these are also fairly easy to make for only $100 or so, and existing printers can print many of the parts for new ones).  Second, 3D printed guns can be manufactured fairly cheaply.  Third, 3D printed guns in the hands of millions of angry subjects is enough to overthrow a government, but because the guns cannot handle more than a few shots, they are horrible weapons for terrorism.  For them to be effective in war, the army wielding them would need a huge number of people, each armed with a large number of guns.  In short, they make great self defensive weapons and would be very effective in a revolution where a very large number of people were participating, but they would be horrible for terrorism and waging war.

I will admit that the guy from Spain may have been right.  Given the lack of evidence for either argument, it is possible that gun bans do increase safety by a small margin (the same lack of evidence also could support the claim that gun bans reduce safety by the same small margin).  As such, it is also possible that printable guns would slightly reduce the safety of civilized countries.  In my opinion, however, even if that is true, it is a perfectly acceptable price to pay if it has the potential to dramatically increase the safety and freedom of the other three quarters of the population of the world.  I find it extremely selfish to consider my own safety to be more valuable than the freedom and safety of the rest of the population of the world (and, our country was ultimately founded by those who were willing to sacrifice all of their safety for the freedom and safety of others).

This is not only in the best interest of those three quarters who are oppressed.  Free nations tend to have far better economies than oppressed ones.  If all of the nations of the Earth were free, imagine the resources we would have access to.  Also, the more people who are innovating, the faster innovation occurs.  Again, imagine the rate of technological advancement, where the number of innovators in the world was quadrupled (or more, many of the oppressed masses are far less lazy than people who grew up in more developed nations).  The improvements in economy that would occur if the majority of the world was free would dwarf anything ever seen in the history of the world.  The free countries of the civilized world would benefit dramatically as well.  Note that it might take years, decades, or even a century or two for this to play out, but, if nothing else, if they have guns and are fighting among themselves, at least they will be leaving us alone.

In summary, Earth is not a free world.  Earth is a world where a vast majority of the population are in the grips of tyranny.  There are some small pockets of resistance, but they are a small minority.  Civilized countries need to be more willing to help those who are sincerely trying to escape tyranny and oppression.  Printable guns may be the ultimate solution to the problem, but it will probably take a long time, regardless of the means to freedom.  And last, the civilized world stands to benefit greatly from widespread global freedom from oppression.  Instead of trying to create more laws to reduce our freedoms, the U.S. government should be protecting the distribution channels of information (i.e., gun printing files) that could help increase freedom in the rest of the world, for the benefit of the oppressed and of ourselves.