Albert Jay Nock was one of the seminal voices of conservative/libertarian thought in the first half of the 20th century. As an editor and essayist he was recognized as one of the towering intellects of his era and a contemporary and colleague of people such as Charles Beard, Bertrand Russell, Thomas Mann, Lewis Mumford, Lincoln Steffens, Thorstein Veblen, William Henry Chamberlin and Louis Untermeyer. Author of On Doing the Right Thing, Our Enemy, the State, a biography of Thomas Jefferson, and his own autobiography, Memoirs of a Superfluous Man.

The Wikipedia entry for him includes the following:

During the 1930s, Nock was one of the most consistent critics of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal programs. In Our Enemy, the State, Nock argued that the New Deal was merely a pretext for the federal government to increase its control over society. He was dismayed that the president had gathered unprecedented power in his own hands and called this development an out-and-out coup d'etat. Nock criticized those who believed that the new regimentation of the economy was temporary, arguing that it would prove a permanent shift. He believed that the inflationary monetary policy of the Republican administrations of the 1920s were responsible for the onset of the Great Depression, and that the New Deal was responsible for perpetuating it.

For a more detailed description of Nock's life and beliefs, read this essay.

The prophet's career began at the end of King Uzziah's reign, say about 740 B.C. This reign was uncommonly long, almost half a century, and apparently prosperous. It was one of those prosperous reigns, however – like the reign of Marcus Aurelius at Rome, or the administration of Eubulus at Athens, or of Mr. Coolidge at Washington – where at the end the prosperity suddenly peters out and things go by the board with a resounding crash.

In the year of Uzziah's death, the Lord commissioned the prophet to go out and warn the people of the wrath to come. "Tell them what a worthless lot they are." He said, "Tell them what is wrong, and why and what is going to happen unless they have a change of heart and straighten up. Don't mince matters. Make it clear that they are positively down to their last chance. Give it to them good and strong and keep on giving it to them. I suppose perhaps I ought to tell you," He added, "that it won't do any good. The official class and their intelligentsia will turn up their noses at you and the masses will not even listen. They will all keep on in their own ways until they carry everything down to destruction, and you will probably be lucky if you get out with your life."

Isaiah had been very willing to take on the job – in fact, he had asked for it – but the prospect put a new face on the situation. It raised the obvious question: Why, if all that were so – if the enterprise were to be a failure from the start – was there any sense in starting it? "Ah," the Lord said, "you do not get the point. There is a Remnant there that you know nothing about. They are obscure, unorganized, inarticulate, each one rubbing along as best he can. They need to be encouraged and braced up because when everything has gone completely to the dogs, they are the ones who will come back and build up a new society; and meanwhile, your preaching will reassure them and keep them hanging on. Your job is to take care of the Remnant, so be off now and set about it."

Isaiah's job, then — and the case Nock makes for his reader — is to strengthen the things that will remain, even if these are nearly buried by the spirit of the age and even though it may appear more popular and lucrative to tickle the ears of the masses. But who, what or which is which?

What do we mean by the masses, and what by the Remnant?

As the word masses is commonly used, it suggests agglomerations of poor and underprivileged people, labouring people, proletarians, and it means nothing like that; it means simply the majority. The mass-man is one who has neither the force of intellect to apprehend the principles issuing in what we know as the humane life, nor the force of character to adhere to those principles steadily and strictly as laws of conduct; and because such people make up the great and overwhelming majority of mankind, they are called collectively the masses. The line of differentiation between the masses and the Remnant is set invariably by quality, not by circumstance. The Remnant are those who by force of intellect are able to apprehend these principles, and by force of character are able, at least measurably, to cleave to them. The masses are those who are unable to do either.

The picture which Isaiah presents of the Judean masses is most unfavorable. In his view, the mass-man – be he high or be he lowly, rich or poor, prince or pauper – gets off very badly. He appears as not only weak-minded and weak-willed, but as by consequence knavish, arrogant, grasping, dissipated, unprincipled, unscrupulous.

That smacks of an elitism that would get you drummed out of any Party caucus and get you mocked on national television since it flies in the face of nearly 100 years of public education and the facile lip-service of our social, political and cultural icons. It is far easier to simply feed the beast rather than stick your arm in and try to pull a bone from its maw.

Everyone with a message nowadays is, like my venerable European friend, eager to take it to the masses. His first, last and only thought is of mass-acceptance and mass-approval. His great care is to put his doctrine in such shape as will capture the masses' attention and interest. This attitude towards the masses is so exclusive, so devout, that one is reminded of the troglodytic monster described by Plato, and the assiduous crowd at the entrance to its cave, trying obsequiously to placate it and win its favour, trying to interpret its inarticulate noises, trying to find out what it wants, and eagerly offering it all sorts of things that they think might strike its fancy.

Appealing to the masses is a great way to sell beer or American Idol, but a treacherous way to build a foundation, especially for anything that has to last.

The main trouble with all this is its reaction upon the mission itself. It necessitates an opportunist sophistication of one's doctrine, which profoundly alters its character and reduces it to a mere placebo. If, say, you are a preacher, you wish to attract as large a congregation as you can, which means an appeal to the masses; and this, in turn, means adapting the terms of your message to the order of intellect and character that the masses exhibit. If you are an educator, say with a college on your hands, you wish to get as many students as possible, and you whittle down your requirements accordingly. If a writer, you aim at getting many readers; if a publisher, many purchasers; if a philosopher, many disciples; if a reformer, many converts; if a musician, many auditors; and so on. But as we see on all sides, in the realization of these several desires, the prophetic message is so heavily adulterated with trivialities, in every instance, that its effect on the masses is merely to harden them in their sins. Meanwhile, the Remnant, aware of this adulteration and of the desires that prompt it, turn their backs on the prophet and will have nothing to do with him or his message.

Isaiah, on the other hand, worked under no such disabilities. He preached to the masses only in the sense that he preached publicly. Anyone who liked might listen; anyone who liked might pass by. He knew that the Remnant would listen; and knowing also that nothing was to be expected of the masses under any circumstances, he made no specific appeal to them, did not accommodate his message to their measure in any way, and did not care two straws whether they heeded it or not. As a modern publisher might put it, he was not worrying about circulation or about advertising. Hence, with all such obsessions quite out of the way, he was in a position to do his level best, without fear or favour, and answerable only to his august Boss.

If a prophet were not too particular about making money out of his mission or getting a dubious sort of notoriety out of it, the foregoing considerations would lead one to say that serving the Remnant looks like a good job. An assignment that you can really put your back into, and do your best without thinking about results, is a real job; whereas serving the masses is at best only half a job, considering the inexorable conditions that the masses impose upon their servants. They ask you to give them what they want, they insist upon it, and will take nothing else; and following their whims, their irrational changes of fancy, their hot and cold fits, is a tedious business, to say nothing of the fact that what they want at any time makes very little call on one’s resources of prophesy. The Remnant, on the other hand, want only the best you have, whatever that may be. Give them that, and they are satisfied; you have nothing more to worry about. The prophet of the American masses must aim consciously at the lowest common denominator of intellect, taste and character among 120,000,000 people; and this is a distressing task. The prophet of the Remnant, on the contrary, is in the enviable position of Papa Haydn in the household of Prince Esterhazy. All Haydn had to do was keep forking out the very best music he knew how to produce, knowing it would be understood and appreciated by those for whom he produced it, and caring not a button what anyone else thought of it; and that makes a good job.

The thing about the masses is that while they can be hard to predict, they are generally easy to detect and their reaction, whether it be honor or approbation, is immediate (if short-lived). The Remnant — again those with the intellect to grasp the principals and the character to live by them — are harder to find. Indeed, they may appear to be extinct.

One of the most suggestive episodes recounted in the Bible is that of a prophet's attempt – the only attempt of the kind on the record, I believe – to count up the Remnant. Elijah had fled from persecution into the desert, where the Lord presently overhauled him and asked what he was doing so far away from his job. He said that he was running away, not because he was a coward, but because all the Remnant had been killed off except himself. He had got away only by the skin of his teeth, and, he being now all the Remnant there was, if he were killed the True Faith would go flat. The Lord replied that he need not worry about that, for even without him the True Faith could probably manage to squeeze along somehow if it had to; "and as for your figures on the Remnant," He said, "I don't mind telling you that there are seven thousand of them back there in Israel whom it seems you have not heard of, but you may take My word for it that there they are."

The Remnant may be hard to find, but Nock strongly suggests that finding them isn't your job.

The other certainty which the prophet of the Remnant may always have is that the Remnant will find him. He may rely on that with absolute assurance. They will find him without his doing anything about it; in fact, if he tries to do anything about it, he is pretty sure to put them off. He does not need to advertise for them nor resort to any schemes of publicity to get their attention. If he is a preacher or a public speaker, for example, he may be quite indifferent to going on show at receptions, getting his picture printed in the newspapers, or furnishing autobiographical material for publication on the side of "human interest." If a writer, he need not make a point of attending any pink teas, autographing books at wholesale, nor entering into any specious freemasonry with reviewers. All this and much more of the same order lies in the regular and necessary routine laid down for the prophet of the masses; it is, and must be, part of the great general technique of getting the mass-man's ear – or as our vigorous and excellent publicist, Mr. H. L. Mencken, puts it, the technique of boob-bumping. The prophet of the Remnant is not bound to this technique. He may be quite sure that the Remnant will make their own way to him without any adventitious aids; and not only so, but if they find him employing any such aids, as I said, it is ten to one that they will smell a rat in them and will sheer off.

The lesson for those that cleave to liberty, self-government and self-discipline and want these to endure is that the standard must be planted and held fast, even if the masses move far away. You may lure them back by cutting off strips of the banner, but then the standard becomes unrecognizable. If you succeed in getting them to carry the altered banner they will only disgrace the original. Let the mass convulse one way and the other in pursuit of its pleasure; in time it will develop a stomach ache and seek relief and will look for the something that is clearly different and will deride that which they thought would make them happy. It's important that they see there is a difference. Who knows, maybe through the process some of the masses will receive the revelation of what doesn't work and will be able to apply and cleave to the value of the lesson, and become part of the Remnant you have loyally served and jealously guarded.

So long as the masses are taking up the tabernacle of Moloch and Chiun, their images, and following the star of their god Buncombe, they will have no lack of prophets to point the way that leadeth to the More Abundant Life; and hence a few of those who feel the prophetic afflatus might do better to apply themselves to serving the Remnant. It is a good job, an interesting job, much more interesting than serving the masses; and moreover it is the only job in our whole civilization, as far as I know, that offers a virgin field.

If you've read this far you probably had a sense of trepidation at what was about to be revealed. An underlying dread of guns permeates our culture...a culture that sensationalizes cartoon-like gun violence as entertainment in TV and movies while in real life producing a pervasive (and just as unrealistic) mindset that suggests that not only do guns have a mind of their own, but it's an evil and twisted mind at that. As for myself, I didn't grow up with firearms in the house for the most part but in my semi-rural adolescence I hunted a few times and fired pistols, rifles and shotguns on occasion. I also had BB guns when I was a kid and learned to aim (and what not to aim at) and operate a weapon effectively. Later my grandfather gave me a .22 rifle which I still have.

As an adult I didn't have a strong desire to own a handgun, but also didn't think there was anything wrong with doing so. On more than few occasions I thought of getting one just because I'd always enjoyed target-shooting, but there were always more necessary things, like a new set of tires or kids' tuitions, taking precedence. Just knowing I had a right to own a gun and the capability of buying one if I wanted to was enough for me. While I don't live a particularly dangerous life or in a particularly risky neighborhood, there have been unexpected times where having a gun handy would have been a comfort, such as the time when my 8 1/2 months pregnant and home alone wife had to ponder the defensive potential of a very fat cat heaved at the head of what she thought might be someone breaking into the house, or when I took a baseball bat to investigate a possible intruder in my garage, and especially the time when we took in a woman and her children who were hiding out from an allegedly violent husband. Those are times when you realize the reality behind the somewhat humorous maxim, "When seconds count, the police are just minutes away."

As the November election approached last year I started to think that something I'd long taken for granted wasn't necessarily as accessible as I thought. Apparently a few million other people had the same thought as just the potential of more restrictive gun control in fact achieved a form of that control: the increased demand effectively drove costs up and availability down as gun shows and gun dealers were swamped with those eager to buy while they could. As much as I hate crowds and lemming-like reactions I ultimately decided that owning a gun even if I never needed it was better than needing a gun and never having one.

Before doing so, however, I did a lot of research. Not just on what type of gun made the most sense for our potential need, but also on the hurdles to buying a gun and the ramifications of actually using one in self-defense. The very sobering realization is that you have to be prepared to essentially ruin your life in order to save it. Even when using a gun to defend yourself or someone else from death or great bodily harm, the public reaction, legal hassles and likely civil, if not criminal, trial means a prolonged, expensive and likely life-changing ordeal. Rather than making you "tough" or someone who "doesn't have to take crap from anyone", owning and then discharging a gun defensively (let's not even talk "offensively") in anything but the gravest extreme is a "loaded" transaction. (I highly recommend Massad Ayoob's very readable "In the Gravest Extreme: The Role of the Firearm in Personal Protection" if you want a quick and clear understanding of what is at stake, pro and con.)

Having long ago made the decision that I would give my life to preserve the ones near and dear to me, I now had to decide if I could take the life of someone who threatened them, and if I wanted my family to have the opportunity to make the same choice. Even having reached that decision, it was still a sobering moment when I returned from the range after practicing with the new gun and sat on the edge of that bed to clean the weapon. Holding something like in your hand is a big step away from theory and into reality.

The first priority was for home defense. For a variety of pretty obvious reasons, rifles are not ideal for the close confines of a home setting if the desperate need arises. Shotguns are effective and often advocated for home defense, but are also unwieldy indoors and can be as intimidating for the user as they are for the target. I wanted something that not only I could use effectively under duress, but something my wife or daughters could also control. I considered several options, researched these and talked to other people and ultimately settled on a specific handgun that an intruder would find both initially discouraging and ultimately devastating if it came to that. It's a gun that gives you the option of firing either .410 shotgun shells or .45 caliber Colts, weighs less than 2 pounds. I've had a couple of sessions with my wife and the girls and also Ben (since Ben and Faith will be living with us for awhile after they get married) so that everyone in the household knows how to load and fire the gun and is familiar with the sound and the kick. And I truly hope they never have to use it.

For now, the decision has been made in terms of home defense only. I'll probably take a Conceal & Carry class if only to have the training and certification, but I don't know that I'll often — if ever — carry. If I do go that route I'll need an additional gun since, obviously, if we have one handgun and I'm carrying it, it means that both I and the gun are not in the house in case there's trouble.

I'm fully aware that there are a lot of arguments for and against owning a gun. Anyone going down this path owes it to themselves, their families and their neighbors to consider this carefully and thoroughly. Of some use in this is an excellent essay that EckerNet linked to a little while back entitled "Is CCW the Right Choice for Me?" The author went through a lot of the same thought processes that I did, and had some great observations and arguments that do an excellent job of summing up my own feelings, including:

It is I think, because this decision is so uncomfortable for most that firearms receive a special stigma. No one thinks that by wearing a seatbelt drivers will go out and look for accidents to get into, nor do they think that by owning a fire extinguisher that people will brazenly allow their children to play with matches, and rarely does anyone accuse martial arts classes of creating groups of felons who will go out and beat up on everyone they see. Yet those thoughts are directly analogous to the concerns many people voice concerning civilians carrying guns, despite the fact that they are all simply precautionary measures we take simply for our own safety.

In addition to this link, Kevin at the EckerNet is running a series of posts this week looking at the various gun bills currently being considered in Congress. These deliberations will have a demonstrable effect on whether those people who have rushed to buy guns since November are foolish...or prescient.

As for myself, I think the author of the CCW piece I linked earlier again sums it up very well:

The evidence has shown me that firearms in the hands of good people do far more good than harm. Good people, able to defend themselves and others, are ultimately a benefit to all. While this is not a decision I feel everyone should make, I am glad it is one which is available to me, and I shall exercise it with care.