I'm standing in front of my CO; no one else is in the room. The door is closed, and the Captain has a look on his face that suggests he'd rather be buying me a cup of coffee than deal with whatever's on his mind. After the required small talk, the fun begins.
“Hoyt, you'll be leaving the country in two weeks. You've been picked for a quiet mission that requires your particular skill set, and command figures that even though there are a few other guys that qualify, well, they landed on you.”
So far, so good.
“Now then, the nature of the mission means you can't talk about it. In fact, nobody can talk about it because when you get where you're going, you'll be where you're not supposed to be.”
The plot thickens . . .
“The actual action is yours alone, but you won't be operating in the theater by yourself. Another asset from a different outfit will be flying out at the same time. Now, here's where it gets interesting, Hoyt. Your chances of coming back will largely be determined by how good the other guy is.”
Pause as he prepares for the punch line.
“He'll be out of Benning - runs a 110.”
Lovely. My fellow traveler is a sniper. Guess that means I won't have time for breakfast at some quaint outdoor cafe when the job is done.
“Now, I'm not saying anything you don't know when I tell you that command gives you more leeway than most, and this time they're even giving you some input about your buddy. They've narrowed it down to two guys, both good operators, but they're miles apart when it comes to their quality as traveling companions, although you'll never actually see him. They're sending him on another transport so you can't ID him if it all goes south.”
The military is into that kind of thing.
“One is like you – not a lot of noise, kind that would rather be behind the stage than on it, even goes to church from what I hear. The other guy is a mouthy jerk who can't seem to form a sentence without every other word being an obscenity. His Sergeant says he's a religious atheist - whatever that is.”
I know exactly what that is.
“They say the only time he shuts his mouth is when he's got his ghillie on. So, it's your call – what do you say?”
I look at him for a moment, wondering if this is a trick question before I speak up.
“Which one's the best shot?”
__________________________
Now, lest any of you think this is some story from a blacked-out era in my life, forget it. The whole thing is fiction; I've never been in the military at all. The point of it is to illustrate a principle that answers a question a young friend put to me yesterday - what I thought of Mr. Perry. But first, there's one particular rabbit we have to run down – the concept of property.
Typically, when you say property people will think of houses, cars, and land. Big stuff. Prompted to think about it, they'll usually say everything you own is property, right down to your fingernail clippers. But property goes beyond things; it includes everything over which you were created with direct control. Your time, your ideas, your physical, mental, and emotional well-being – everything that your individuality consists of is your property, including the most fundamental thing of all: life.
Everything you have ever earned or been given, tangible or intangible, is your property. Remember that definition, because you'll never be able to make rational, logical, and informed political or social determinations without understanding what property means.
So, why would my only concern for who my make-believe Army buddy will be deal solely with who was the best shot? Because that was the only factor that involved my property. His connection to my life was extremely narrow, very clearly defined, and temporary. I won't even know who he is, so if he's a fellow Christian or a joker who thinks the bombardier beetle came about as the result of random chance, it will in no way effect my life. On the other hand, his ability to ventilate a bad guy's glabella from 400 yards out with a 147-grain boat tail will factor largely into my fictional future.
The point is, your interaction with other people and the decisions you make about them can only be responsibly determined by knowing and defining their potential for affecting your property. We're not talking rocket surgery here, folks – employers generally don't hire folks who have been fired from two jobs for stealing. You and I usually avoid people we've been told get angry and hit people on a regular basis. Even when you know your well-being will be at risk from getting involved with someone – like social workers and missionaries do all the time – you must use intelligence and thoughtfulness to properly determine how much exposure you allow.
Remember this principle: you must watch out for yourself right up to the point of selfishness, because if you don't, you compromise your ability to watch out for those whom you are responsible for – and you are ALWAYS responsible for somebody, somewhere. Without a correct understanding of property rights and a willingness to protect them, you cannot follow this principle.
_____________________________
So here we go, my friend. I'm confident that I'm safe in adding an epexegetical “as President” to your question, and there's the connection to my rant. As an individual, I am in a poor position to know anything about Mr. Perry regarding his character. From what I have seen – which is admittedly little because I don't pay much attention to any presidential candidates for reasons I'll explain later – he seems to be a good man. However, his “goodness” as a man may not be sufficient to protect me from his actions as a president. Good men are quite capable of doing some spectacularly stupid things. We had a little spat around here years ago after somebody took a shot at Fort Sumter because of this, and don't take that as a suggestion that the good men were only on one side. In that chapter of American history 620,000 men died as a result of good men being horribly wrong. Mr. Perry is quite capable, because he is a sinner like the rest of us, of causing everything from discomfort to death as a result of decisions he has the power to make as President – many powers which he will, given the chance, arrogate to himself that are not part of his job description because that's what we have taught presidents they can do. So what I'm looking for in a president is the same as I look for in everyone else; a way to keep my property isolated from the effects of other people's decisions as much as I can without crossing over into selfishness. How successful I have been at doing that is another discussion, but it is what I do.
So then, in my way of thinking, Mr. Perry gets subjected to the same test as all other candidates: is he making clear and unambiguous statements that he intends to abide strictly by his job description found in Article II of The Constitution for the United States of America, a job description requiring only 322 words.
If my sniper shows up on my airplane because he wants to get to know the guy he's protecting, he's not abiding by his orders, and we have a problem. If a man with the power that this fellow has with his rifle will disobey his orders because he believes he has come up with a purpose that is superior to that of his command, there is no way to know what the end of it all will be. For all I know, the mission may get interesting and the guy may decide it's easier just to put a round in my skull instead of trying to take out 5 or 6 bad guys.
It may be that Mr. Perry will be faced with a situation that he thinks needs a particular solution, a solution that puts his actions outside the clear limitations of the office, and as a result, thousands lose their jobs – or their lives.
So, all I want to know is will Mr. Perry abide by his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, because that is all the protection I have for my property in our form of governance, and frankly, I see nothing yet that indicates he will, nor do I expect to. Or from any of the other candidates, either, the clear exception being Ron Paul.
I mentioned that I don't pay much attention to presidential candidates. My reason rests in the belief that any candidate that actually wins the nomination from either of the main parties is immediately disqualified from the office, for both parties require from their man an adherence to their philosophies, both of which require the president to go beyond his constitutional limitations. How far is simply a matter of which one you're talking about. One party wants the president to steal everything you own; the other is willing to let you walk away with as much as you can carry.
Fact is, as I have said somewhere else around here, presidential elections in the United States can be best illustrated by a guy dropping a paper sack full of dog manure on your porch and setting it on fire, leaving you with the choice of holding your nose or stomping it out. A reasonable argument could be made that one choice is less offensive than the other, but they both stink.
Me? I'll have no part in it, except to write in the candidate that I think would be appropriate, which, for the moment, would as likely be me as anybody else.
