Banning Things

John Bailey
7 min readJun 16, 2022

There are complicated, long-brewing problems in society, driving some terrible outcomes. Those problems are most visible in some broad demographic — especially when some political hustler points to them in that way and tells you it’s so.

Quick: We need more laws, more police, more prisons, more punishment — brought to focus on that demographic that political hustler told you about. (Are you still too stupid to realize how often “that demographic” is code for some ethnic reference?)

Banning alcohol was an EPIC FAILURE at producing the outcomes proponents claimed. Instead, it gave rise to criminal cartels, corruption, and violence that echoed down the decades.

The problems this caused socially and economically fell disproportionately on the poor, and non-white demographics. Implementation and enforcement of the law was racist, and eroded civil liberties in general.

The ban made alcohol more popular. It was “cool” and rebellious — the natural reflex to … authoritarianism. And, the US government outright lost the “war on booze”.

Banning interracial relationships FAILED to produce the outcomes proponents claimed.

The law was racist by design. And, the States that had these laws outright lost this war, though they continue to cling to “marriage licensing” as a vestige of authoritarianism that abrogates citizens’ religious and personal freedoms to this day.

Trying to ban homosexuality FAILED to produce the outcomes proponents claimed.

The States that had these laws outright lost this war too, though many continue to try through various means to infringe on the civil liberties of many of their citizens in regard to whom they can love and how they might express or formalize that love.

Banning abortion FAILED to prevent people from having them.

Those of means continued to have easy access, while harms caused by lack of access — and by incompetent black market attempts — or suicide — fell disproportionately on the poor and non-white demographics. (That ban, too, was racist.)

Banning drugs was an EPIC FAILURE to produce the outcomes proponents claimed. Instead, it gave rise to criminal cartels, corruption, and violence, provably worsening EVERY social and economic ill proponents claimed it would “solve”.

The “war on drugs” was racist by design:

The social and economic harms caused by the “war on drugs” fell disproportionately on the poor and non-white demographics.

The “war on drugs” was racist in its implementation and enforcement.

It eroded civil liberties through “civil forfeiture”

It lead to mass (systematically racist) incarceration

And fostered bondage-for-profit (private prison neoslavery).

The social consequence of the “war on drugs” was that they become “cool” and more popular (just as alcohol had during “prohibition”).

Decades of SWAT raids seem unable to slow the manufacture of illegal drugs. And, the US government is in fact, by degrees, now surrendering in this war, too.

It is insane to re-task the occupying army we call “police” to fight a new domestic war of occupation — on guns — imagining it will have an outcome less corrupt, less racist, or less violent than the war on drugs. By any rational assessment, it is likely to be worse.

The Assault Weapons Ban (1994) was an incompetent pandering to the firearms-ignorant with nonsense about cosmetic things like “folding stocks” and “flash suppressors” rather than functionality like ballistics or rate of fire, etc.

MORE weapons that FUNCTIONED as rapid-fire rifles in the calibers of concern were manufactured DURING the ban than prior (because the ban made them “cool”, inflating demand).

And, when the ban ended, MASSIVE amounts of these weapons were sold (because the ban had made them “cool”). The AWB is at least in part to blame for the current proliferation of what are commonly called “assault rifles” (magazine-fed, rapid-fire, military-aesthetic, rifles).

Auto-loading firearms are 100+ year old technology that anyone who is handy can manufacture cheaply, using only hand tools.

In the US are there more people competent to manufacture an auto-loading firearm, or to cook methamphetamine without blowing themselves up?

Put another way, are there more people competent to do applied high school chemistry or to grind, drill, hammer, weld, and file metal parts to fit together?

(See “Luty”, and Google “80% receiver” and “3d printed gun”)

In the USA, are there more people competent to manufacture an auto-loading firearm, or to perform an abortion? (See “Luty”, and Google “80% receiver” and “3d printed gun”) The government at one point, surrendered in the war on abortion, though it appears ready to stupidly try that one again.

Banning things is small-minded and authoritarian; never produces the outcomes the pro-ban authoritarians claim it will; and is consistently racist in implementation, enforcement, and outcomes. Bans consistently install corruption, crime, and violence — and consistently erode civil liberties broadly. Bans also consistently create an increased curiosity of and demand for the thing that’s banned — consistently fostering a proliferation of the thing the ban pretends to remove.

Anyone who is pro-ban OF ANY KIND, OF ANY THING is not just ignorant (of history, psychology, economics, etc): They are demonstrably ignorant of the specific subject matter. Worst of all, THEY ARE AN AUTHORITARIAN, whether they understand the fact or not.

“There are many who do not know they are fascists but will find it out when the time comes.” — Robert Jordan

The worst kind of authoritarians are not those who are proud of it, but those too stupid to realize it.

Anyone who thinks the “solution” to a complicated social problem is to send the police to infringe the freedoms of some labeled demographic doesn’t understand the social problem. Banning things is *always* based on scapegoating broad society-level problems onto some demographic of “others” — as defined by some political scammer — and to the detriment of us all.

The US was created on mass-murder. Some of the earliest heroes of our national mythology were “Indian fighters”. Monuments to the most vicious butchers of their fellow Americans still stand in various public squares. After that, movies celebrating the mass killer were made about WW2. Then, Viet Nam — where actors from John Wayne to Sylvester Stallone posed with the M-16 — and demonstrated the American model of “hero” in mass-murdering the “bad people” who looked and sounded different.

During that time, the same collection of actors acted-out the same story-line of:

Socially odd semi-loner suffers mistreatment by easily-identifiable tribe of baddies — and then mass-murders them (often with an AR-15 looking rifle) — after which some random half-naked woman is implied to have sex with … the guy who has just committed mass killing.

During that time, the same collection of actors appeared in “copaganda” productions, glorifying the highly-militarized, combat-equipped, occupying force that conducts over 100 SWAT raids EVERY DAY in America — often on the wrong houses — often killing people who behaved reasonably in response to armed masked men violently forcing their way into the sleeping person’s home.

During that time, America has acted out an official policy of destabilizing democratic countries, fostering violent coups and killings of democratically elected officials, setting up brutal torturing puppet regimes, looting resources from poor countries, invading them and murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians, kidnapping and torturing people who resist and calling them “terrorists”. And, our media has glorified every shred of this — to the point of glorifying as a badge of honor soldiers being crippled to the depths of their humanity by moral injury for having committed atrocities.

The mythology of American society, from the early days to now, and through all the media of our various times, is a blueprint for mass-shooter-as-hero.

Now, we face “desperation capitalism”. It is mathematically infeasible for any kid graduating high school or college today, unless they come from money, to pay-off their school loans, work, save, and EVER own a home. We have artificially-restricted supply of medical professionals and supplies. Corporations have a strangle-hold on both employees and customers, pursuing “mergers and acquisitions” (monopolization) strategy to insure you do business with them or not at all. This includes, in much of the country, for your medical care.

The corporate lawyers and lobbyists have also made it infeasible for the employee or customer harmed by these behemoths to achieve redress or remuneration. Corporations, and the bureaucrats and lackeys who pull their levers can harm — can wantonly abuse — employees and customers alike, with virtual impunity. There’s no redress through the civil process.

The politicians, while taking money from the corporations, tell us to “vote harder” and “maybe next time we’ll pass a bill” — all the while inserting “poison pill” language to sabotage their own bills, to insure the same political footballs remain in play, to insure their “constituents” (cattle) stay on the plantation, stay working, stay groveling, stay donating, stay voting.

The Bible of Amerikan mythology has advice for those who feel alone, who are abused beyond the pale. It has an exact framework of action, and promises at the end of the day the fulfillment of vindication — and sex with the hot murderphile. Or, at least becoming media-famous for a week or so.

This isn’t caused by any specific inanimate object or collection of inanimate objects. This is a culture that venerates the lone mass killer. “Nit-witted” doesn’t begin to describe the stupidity of trying to address a cultural issue as old as the technology of the object by … banning the technology.

Guns are a central theme in this article, but they aren’t the actual topic: BANNING THINGS — as a strategy for political scammers pretending to address complex social problems through scapegoating (objects, groups, etc) while in reality profiteering from the division they sew — that’s the actual topic.

Banning things EQUALS SCAPEGOATING. It appeals to and is the argument of nit-wits or the con-men who are manipulating those nit-wits. It’s at once a red herring distraction from all the real issues and causes — and a ratcheting of authoritarianism and corruption that the political scammers trade on.

Banning things will never be more than this.

It will never advertise its proponents as anything but authoritarian con-men — or their fools. Anyone who engages in credulous pretense of “discussion” about ANY “banning things” strategy is culpable in outright vandalism of the collective IQ, the cohesion of society, the common liberty, and the Republic itself.