The classic American debate.
Wherever you fall on the debate, the truth will remain that Pandora's box is already opened. There can be no gun free USA.
The argument however remains divisive and lacks any sense, especially from the pro-gun advocates.
First up, it's extremely naive to believe an armed population is somehow going to stop tyranny.
It's an argument I see constantly, and yet those most vocal about it never DO shit about their own corrupt and abusive government.
Congress is (and has been for a while) less popular than the British during colonial rule.
Where's the revolution, boys and girls?
Why not look to other nations with mass gun ownership. I don't see much democracy and free association going on.
Plenty of civil unrest, war and violence though.
This is not an argument for gun control.
It's an argument against bullshit justifications for gun ownership.
Banning guns in the US will never work, stop pretending that is the end goal for gun control.
Banning guns may not ever be the correct response to gun crime, but regulations and restrictions are not the same as a ban.
There is no need to parrot meaningless rhetoric as your argument to keep your precious guns.
Gun ownership doesn't make any individual bad, and obviously those that legally own a firearm are not the criminals, but widely available guns certainly incentivise their use and make them more accessible
If you like to hunt or sport shoot, that's awesome. If you like to collect? Great.
If you think owning a gun makes you safer? You are an idiot.
I get the idea of self defence, but it's largely an illusion. There really is no such thing as safety.
We live in a world of 7+ billion people.
Even the most well armed and skilled individual can be overcome with numbers, and numbers the human race has in abundance.
Using a gun as a safety blanket strikes me as silly.
For every instance where gun ownership makes you more safe, there are many in which it makes you less safe.
A reasonable and rational person will weigh these risks and decide, and that I can respect.
Anybody
that imagines their sidearm is going to prevent government corruption,
or their arrest (lawful or otherwise) is frankly delusional.
Anybody that thinks good guys with guns are a necessary counter to bad guys with guns really does not know how life works.
The fantasy of being a hero and shooting the bad guy is a great one.
It's understandable.
Hell, I even admit to it myself, and I think "death by cop" is absolutely justifiable (even if we remove the cop. I think criminals forfeit the right to their safety even though I'm a bleeding heart. A criminal is not as deserving of respect or empathy as a non criminal, though bloodshed is always best avoided)
Perhaps home or personal defence really do justify gun ownership and I'm simply a cynic, but what I do know is that an untrained individual with a gun that is stored unsafely and poorly maintained is not a person I would trust to use it properly.
Gun ownership and gun control are complex issues.
When politicians declare arbitrary kinds of guns illegal they do a disservice to the conversation every bit as much as the nuts that think a rifle will end tyranny.
I only hope that sensible voices win out in the long run.
Showing posts with label Liberalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liberalism. Show all posts
Monday, 15 June 2015
Friday, 12 June 2015
Self made fortune: How wealth is a colloboration, no matter how hard an individual works, even alone.
As in the previous post, I wanted to discuss the idea of wealth and how only society has enabled individuals to amass and protect it.
In most instances this is FAR too complex to even approach an explanation of in short form. The dependence of everyone on the systems we have developed over the vast expanse of human history if a marvel to an inquiring mind.
I will choose to pick my favourite example, as it is simple in the extreme and inarguably those that gain success with it have done all the work themselves.
I am talking, of course, of writing.
A best selling author will probably only make a modest sum, but occasionally a writer will hit the jackpot, finding fame and fortune.
The thing they sell to the masses is an idea. Perhaps an idea in long form, but it has no other value.
Now, this author that has achieved such success has earned it. They did the work and deserve the credit, but even still they rely on a system so heavily that whatever price they pay in tax is a small price for what they gained.
Let us begin with the direct help a writer will receive and likely pay for directly with a share of the "profit" or as a service.
Now, some take a significant portion of the proceeds from selling books, but I do not imagine a single instance of self publishing working better in terms of audience reach (perhaps crowd funding would be more financially rewarding for many aspiring authors, but with less possibility for commercial success)
The book is a physical object, the production of it is reliant on so much infrastructure, labour and human invention that books were an object of immense value for most of human history; not something to jot down a yarn on for the general public. From growing the raw materials to making the paper and ink, to the manufacture of machinery need for this and for the printing... No one person could accomplish all of this, no matter how awesome their book.
But this is only the beginning.
It would take a very long time for a writer to deliver copies of their book to every buyer and so we have.
Except there is more.
Who exactly is the audience for this? It is almost certainly not written in a language created entirely by our hypothetical author? How is the author even receiving value for this idea of theirs? Did they emerge from the womb with such ideas fully formed as if by divine inspiration?
Even this one VERY limited example is of such complexity that my short explanations barely do it justice. I'm shining a beam torch in a cavern.
Imagine how much more reliant on our systems other endeavours might be.
Always keep in mind that no man is an island.
Without society, without our communities, shared culture and even (*cue dramatic music*) the state, there would be no support to hold up the successful.
If the world operated best on "enlightened self interest" (an oft invoked excuse for selfishness) as the only way forward, why are the most dominant species ALWAYS communal? Why indeed do humans find the best success in groups? Could it be that cooperation and the altruism required to make it work is... pragmatic?
Put away the childish objectivist or self serving attitudes.
Realise that meritocracy, liberty and personal success are not antithetical to the principles of community, but that community serves those principles (or damn well should do)
Remember, those decrying the state and the payment of taxes are in a very real sense the most reliant on the things those taxes pay for.
Without "the state" a poor person remains poor; a rich person *becomes* poor.
Who should have the largest incentive, the largest responsibility, the largest share of the burden to preserve these systems?
History reveals that throughout all times until recently those with the greatest wealth realised they had the most to lose. Noblesse oblige was about true "enlightened self interest" as much as it was a moral imperative for those in power not to abuse their status.
In short, those that benefit most from the system should be footing the fucking bill, not finding excuses to put that burden on others.
In most instances this is FAR too complex to even approach an explanation of in short form. The dependence of everyone on the systems we have developed over the vast expanse of human history if a marvel to an inquiring mind.
I will choose to pick my favourite example, as it is simple in the extreme and inarguably those that gain success with it have done all the work themselves.
I am talking, of course, of writing.
A best selling author will probably only make a modest sum, but occasionally a writer will hit the jackpot, finding fame and fortune.
The thing they sell to the masses is an idea. Perhaps an idea in long form, but it has no other value.
Now, this author that has achieved such success has earned it. They did the work and deserve the credit, but even still they rely on a system so heavily that whatever price they pay in tax is a small price for what they gained.
Let us begin with the direct help a writer will receive and likely pay for directly with a share of the "profit" or as a service.
- The professional editing of the manuscript
- The physical printing of the book
- The promotion of the book
Now, some take a significant portion of the proceeds from selling books, but I do not imagine a single instance of self publishing working better in terms of audience reach (perhaps crowd funding would be more financially rewarding for many aspiring authors, but with less possibility for commercial success)
The book is a physical object, the production of it is reliant on so much infrastructure, labour and human invention that books were an object of immense value for most of human history; not something to jot down a yarn on for the general public. From growing the raw materials to making the paper and ink, to the manufacture of machinery need for this and for the printing... No one person could accomplish all of this, no matter how awesome their book.
But this is only the beginning.
It would take a very long time for a writer to deliver copies of their book to every buyer and so we have.
- Transport of the books to retailers
- The infrastructure allowing this transport
- Safe storage of the books
- Retail outlets that stock the book
- advertisement of the book (related to the above promotion of the book, but not limited to it)
Except there is more.
Who exactly is the audience for this? It is almost certainly not written in a language created entirely by our hypothetical author? How is the author even receiving value for this idea of theirs? Did they emerge from the womb with such ideas fully formed as if by divine inspiration?
- The education system (without which, there would be no audience)
- Human culture (without which, the ideas would have no context)
- Language (who would understand it if it didn't use some form of shared lexicon)
- Communications networks (without this, the idea wouldn't spread to become popular)
- Currency (how you get paid)
- Law enforcement (how your stuff doesn't get nicked)
- The courts (how you enforce contracts and ensure fair play)
Even this one VERY limited example is of such complexity that my short explanations barely do it justice. I'm shining a beam torch in a cavern.
Imagine how much more reliant on our systems other endeavours might be.
Always keep in mind that no man is an island.
Without society, without our communities, shared culture and even (*cue dramatic music*) the state, there would be no support to hold up the successful.
If the world operated best on "enlightened self interest" (an oft invoked excuse for selfishness) as the only way forward, why are the most dominant species ALWAYS communal? Why indeed do humans find the best success in groups? Could it be that cooperation and the altruism required to make it work is... pragmatic?
Put away the childish objectivist or self serving attitudes.
Realise that meritocracy, liberty and personal success are not antithetical to the principles of community, but that community serves those principles (or damn well should do)
Remember, those decrying the state and the payment of taxes are in a very real sense the most reliant on the things those taxes pay for.
Without "the state" a poor person remains poor; a rich person *becomes* poor.
Who should have the largest incentive, the largest responsibility, the largest share of the burden to preserve these systems?
History reveals that throughout all times until recently those with the greatest wealth realised they had the most to lose. Noblesse oblige was about true "enlightened self interest" as much as it was a moral imperative for those in power not to abuse their status.
In short, those that benefit most from the system should be footing the fucking bill, not finding excuses to put that burden on others.
Wednesday, 10 June 2015
A political allegory: The chairmaker.
Politics is a harsh mistress, and misunderstandings are responsible for much of the bad blood.
I hope to alleviate some of the ignorance with a story.
A man makes the best chairs in his community.
Everybody can make a place to sit, or sit on the floor, but the chairs this individual produces are better than any other.
Now, in order to make a chair he must secure and mature the wood, assemble the chair and either use it, or find somebody that will exchange something of value for it. (amongst many other tasks)
Operating on his own, only a small amount of his time is taken producing the thing he is best at. Much of his chair producing time is taken up by tasks he is perfectly capable of, but perhaps not the best at or which anybody could do.
And so, our intrepid chair maker asks another to chop down trees to produce the lumber he needs. He allows others to do the less skilled tasks involved in the production of the chair itself, he allows another to sell the final product.
He is now a job creator. An entrepreneur. He found a market for chairs and he fulfilled that need.
Perhaps he expands his business by training others in his methods so that he has skilled help. Perhaps he patents his ideas and allows others to use his ingenuity.
To me, this chairmaker represents the ideals most people want to support, whatever politics they choose. I do not think I would hear disagreement from conservative, libertarian, liberal or socialist on this matter.
The man is entitled to the fruits of his labour, and he got there through merit.
What I will suggest is that many believe they are supporting the chairmaker against the evils of those workers perhaps jealous of his success, or of the state body overseeing the lives of all, but they are not.
The man who owns the land the trees are grown on, the building the chairmaker works in , the home he lives in. That is the person supported by populist policies on the right, that is the kind of person most usually claiming the title of "job creator"
Not a person that makes, produces or envisions. Just a person that owns things.
A socialist, on the other hand, believes that work has value, ownership does not.
Should the chairmaker exploit those helping him produce his chairs, he makes an enemy of socialist ideology, but he is not inherently so.
I'd suggest that such a "business" as I have outlined is *entirely* in keeping with socialism. Each contributes, each is afforded a share of the fruits of their labours.
As much as the chair maker here is responsible for the livelihoods of many, without those helping him he would not have achieved so much. The point being is that large endeavours require cooperation and inter-reliance.
Any billionaire or multimillionaire that declares themselves "self made" is entirely delusional. (the caveat being that many are aware of the reality and are simply being poetic, which is awesome)
They were reliant on the system they made their fortune in and on the work of those they employed. No man is an island.
If you personally believe that capital (the wealth one possesses) is more important than the work one does, then you do not support the chair maker. You do not support those that create the wealth.
You support the parasites that add no value to the system.
I often hear admonishments that capital gains tax is essentially taxing a person twice, as they already earned the money.
I think this is laughable and makes no sense to a rational mind.
What these people are suggesting is that money which is earned by your money is worth more than money you earn through work.
In a very real sense they are suggesting that the ownership of wealth has more value than the production of wealth.
Now, does this mean investment is evil or worthless?
Of course not!
But due consideration much be made as to the value of investment over work.
Should buying the labour of others be worth more than the labour itself?
We live in a capitalist world, and capitalism has proven to be a very successful tool that works well in many situations.
Socialism aspires to build a better mousetrap, but social democracies prove that socialists have always been willing to embrace the ideas that work.
Bear that in mind when you hear from political ideologues how compromise is evil.
Who would you trust? A political philosophy willing to embrace what works, or one which demonises all opposition at all times?
Regardless of your preferred politics, support the chair maker. Don't blindly support rhetoric on claims of how much it will help those intrepid chair makers of tomorrow.
I hope to alleviate some of the ignorance with a story.
A man makes the best chairs in his community.
Everybody can make a place to sit, or sit on the floor, but the chairs this individual produces are better than any other.
Now, in order to make a chair he must secure and mature the wood, assemble the chair and either use it, or find somebody that will exchange something of value for it. (amongst many other tasks)
Operating on his own, only a small amount of his time is taken producing the thing he is best at. Much of his chair producing time is taken up by tasks he is perfectly capable of, but perhaps not the best at or which anybody could do.
And so, our intrepid chair maker asks another to chop down trees to produce the lumber he needs. He allows others to do the less skilled tasks involved in the production of the chair itself, he allows another to sell the final product.
He is now a job creator. An entrepreneur. He found a market for chairs and he fulfilled that need.
Perhaps he expands his business by training others in his methods so that he has skilled help. Perhaps he patents his ideas and allows others to use his ingenuity.
To me, this chairmaker represents the ideals most people want to support, whatever politics they choose. I do not think I would hear disagreement from conservative, libertarian, liberal or socialist on this matter.
The man is entitled to the fruits of his labour, and he got there through merit.
What I will suggest is that many believe they are supporting the chairmaker against the evils of those workers perhaps jealous of his success, or of the state body overseeing the lives of all, but they are not.
The man who owns the land the trees are grown on, the building the chairmaker works in , the home he lives in. That is the person supported by populist policies on the right, that is the kind of person most usually claiming the title of "job creator"
Not a person that makes, produces or envisions. Just a person that owns things.
A socialist, on the other hand, believes that work has value, ownership does not.
Should the chairmaker exploit those helping him produce his chairs, he makes an enemy of socialist ideology, but he is not inherently so.
I'd suggest that such a "business" as I have outlined is *entirely* in keeping with socialism. Each contributes, each is afforded a share of the fruits of their labours.
As much as the chair maker here is responsible for the livelihoods of many, without those helping him he would not have achieved so much. The point being is that large endeavours require cooperation and inter-reliance.
Any billionaire or multimillionaire that declares themselves "self made" is entirely delusional. (the caveat being that many are aware of the reality and are simply being poetic, which is awesome)
They were reliant on the system they made their fortune in and on the work of those they employed. No man is an island.
If you personally believe that capital (the wealth one possesses) is more important than the work one does, then you do not support the chair maker. You do not support those that create the wealth.
You support the parasites that add no value to the system.
I often hear admonishments that capital gains tax is essentially taxing a person twice, as they already earned the money.
I think this is laughable and makes no sense to a rational mind.
What these people are suggesting is that money which is earned by your money is worth more than money you earn through work.
In a very real sense they are suggesting that the ownership of wealth has more value than the production of wealth.
Now, does this mean investment is evil or worthless?
Of course not!
But due consideration much be made as to the value of investment over work.
Should buying the labour of others be worth more than the labour itself?
We live in a capitalist world, and capitalism has proven to be a very successful tool that works well in many situations.
Socialism aspires to build a better mousetrap, but social democracies prove that socialists have always been willing to embrace the ideas that work.
Bear that in mind when you hear from political ideologues how compromise is evil.
Who would you trust? A political philosophy willing to embrace what works, or one which demonises all opposition at all times?
Regardless of your preferred politics, support the chair maker. Don't blindly support rhetoric on claims of how much it will help those intrepid chair makers of tomorrow.
Friday, 22 May 2015
Thoughts on Liberalism.
Liberalism.
Much maligned and often misrepresented (even by it's staunch proponents) it is without doubt one of the most important political ideologies in human history.
First, to nail down my definition.
A liberal portion is generous, a liberal attitude is tolerant or moderate.
As a political principle liberalism has always placed personal liberty, freedom of expression and secular society highly.
If you believe in freedom of speech (no matter how offensive), the free market and freedom of (or from) religion, you are practising Liberal attitudes. (note: Liberalism as a movement or ideology does not have a monopoly on these things, but the point remains)
In the UK, Liberalism has maintained it's definition.
It is the middle ground between conservatives and socialists.
Now, in some ways this is immensely positive as all mainstream parties have adopted some measure of liberalism, as have the core political ideologies behind them.
In others it has come to reflect a lack of conviction, fence sitting indecision and conflicting policies.
Small L liberalism has won throughout the Western world, and no amount of pretending the word is a curse word will change that reality.
Sadly, American Liberalism (and the political left internationally) has been somewhat coopted by groups and individuals that are not liberal at all.
Anything that undermines individual freedom is against liberalism.
This is a hard line, but difficult to describe.
Personal liberty must have some limit, or I could just walk into your house and take your shit.
I think it's fairly obvious when we are limited so that others may be extended their rights, but there is plenty of ambiguity to argue over the specifics.
Anyone suggesting that individual rights are somehow subordinate to the needs of society is not a liberal.
Free Markets.
Liberalism does not promote state capitalism or socialism.
One of the core tenets of liberalism are property rights, which are the basis of capitalist economies; flawed though I find our modern standards they're a damn sight better than history can provide. Capitalism is not perfect. Anyone saying it is needs to be taken into a padded room, but much like democracy itself; it's an horrendous way of doing things, the only virtue being that it's superior to all alternatives.
Anyone opposing capitalism (even as much as I do, which is to focus on the criticisms) is not a liberal.
Secular society.
Religious tolerance is the cornerstone of liberalism.
Sadly, this is often taken to ridiculous extremes lately with much "progressive" media desperate to defend intolerable religious practices and preach moral relativism.
This can only end in division and intolerance reciprocated from both sides of the divide created.
Anybody suggesting that the religious rights of one person or ideology should be afforded extra protection or reverence is not a liberal.
Now "Social Liberalism" as an ideology complicates matters, but honestly I see it as entirely unrelated to liberalism as an economic or political philosophy.
This laudable set of values grew from classical liberalism, but is such a diverse and divisive concept that it should be placed firmly in it's own category.
For one, I believe that almost the entire Western world is socially liberal.
The trouble comes when zealous ideologues use people's altruistic desires for a tolerant and inclusive culture to promote attitudes of intolerance, bigotry and blame.
This has been a growing problem amongst liberals and the political left, as "call out culture" reaches new heights, all in the name of "inclusion"
The dichotomy and hypocrisy of the practice disturbs me more because so many people refuse to condemn it.
Liberalism might have sown the seeds of social liberalism, and the ubiquity of social liberalism might have allowed the authoritarian "progressives" we should rightly and ironically label "social justice warriors" to flourish, but they are none of them synonymous.
I for one hope that Libertarians will reach a moderate consensus and appreciate just how much they share with Liberals they so often vilify.
Only by unifying reasonable people across political divides can we hope to combat the identity politics endemic on the extreme ends of all ideologies.
Iidentity politics are as inimical to liberalism as they are to libertarians.
Much maligned and often misrepresented (even by it's staunch proponents) it is without doubt one of the most important political ideologies in human history.
First, to nail down my definition.
A liberal portion is generous, a liberal attitude is tolerant or moderate.
As a political principle liberalism has always placed personal liberty, freedom of expression and secular society highly.
If you believe in freedom of speech (no matter how offensive), the free market and freedom of (or from) religion, you are practising Liberal attitudes. (note: Liberalism as a movement or ideology does not have a monopoly on these things, but the point remains)
In the UK, Liberalism has maintained it's definition.
It is the middle ground between conservatives and socialists.
Now, in some ways this is immensely positive as all mainstream parties have adopted some measure of liberalism, as have the core political ideologies behind them.
In others it has come to reflect a lack of conviction, fence sitting indecision and conflicting policies.
Small L liberalism has won throughout the Western world, and no amount of pretending the word is a curse word will change that reality.
Sadly, American Liberalism (and the political left internationally) has been somewhat coopted by groups and individuals that are not liberal at all.
Anything that undermines individual freedom is against liberalism.
This is a hard line, but difficult to describe.
Personal liberty must have some limit, or I could just walk into your house and take your shit.
I think it's fairly obvious when we are limited so that others may be extended their rights, but there is plenty of ambiguity to argue over the specifics.
Anyone suggesting that individual rights are somehow subordinate to the needs of society is not a liberal.
Free Markets.
Liberalism does not promote state capitalism or socialism.
One of the core tenets of liberalism are property rights, which are the basis of capitalist economies; flawed though I find our modern standards they're a damn sight better than history can provide. Capitalism is not perfect. Anyone saying it is needs to be taken into a padded room, but much like democracy itself; it's an horrendous way of doing things, the only virtue being that it's superior to all alternatives.
Anyone opposing capitalism (even as much as I do, which is to focus on the criticisms) is not a liberal.
Secular society.
Religious tolerance is the cornerstone of liberalism.
Sadly, this is often taken to ridiculous extremes lately with much "progressive" media desperate to defend intolerable religious practices and preach moral relativism.
This can only end in division and intolerance reciprocated from both sides of the divide created.
Anybody suggesting that the religious rights of one person or ideology should be afforded extra protection or reverence is not a liberal.
Now "Social Liberalism" as an ideology complicates matters, but honestly I see it as entirely unrelated to liberalism as an economic or political philosophy.
This laudable set of values grew from classical liberalism, but is such a diverse and divisive concept that it should be placed firmly in it's own category.
For one, I believe that almost the entire Western world is socially liberal.
The trouble comes when zealous ideologues use people's altruistic desires for a tolerant and inclusive culture to promote attitudes of intolerance, bigotry and blame.
This has been a growing problem amongst liberals and the political left, as "call out culture" reaches new heights, all in the name of "inclusion"
The dichotomy and hypocrisy of the practice disturbs me more because so many people refuse to condemn it.
Liberalism might have sown the seeds of social liberalism, and the ubiquity of social liberalism might have allowed the authoritarian "progressives" we should rightly and ironically label "social justice warriors" to flourish, but they are none of them synonymous.
I for one hope that Libertarians will reach a moderate consensus and appreciate just how much they share with Liberals they so often vilify.
Only by unifying reasonable people across political divides can we hope to combat the identity politics endemic on the extreme ends of all ideologies.
Iidentity politics are as inimical to liberalism as they are to libertarians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)