Skyler the Weird
Countryboy JJ
Rick Barton
Wiley Coyote
BooneCountyGirl
Get off the BANdwagon
I’ve refrained from putting my thoughts on the Newtown shooting in writing to this point so I might digest as much information as possible about what happened, why it happened, and what the country might do about it. At this point I have little faith that any further useful information or dialogue will occur. Our national attention span being what it is, we will be forced to move on. Whatever “facts” we have on hand now have likely already determined our individual decisions on what we should do about it.
Though it’s likely we’ll never fully understand what or why it happened, it’s becoming increasingly clear that we will do something about it and even clearer that whatever we end up doing about it will most likely be wrong.
Whether our collective decision turns out to be the right thing to do or not will not be known for months or years, perhaps decades.
But one thing has become crystal clear to me; whatever we do will lead to a loss of liberty for us all.
Why do I say this? Because no matter who’s offering up a solution, they all rely on the same premise:
We have to ban ____________.
- Obama and the anti-gun crowd wants to ban assault weapons.
- Other liberals (and some conservatives) want to ban high-capacity magazines.
- The NRA wants to ban violent video games and movies.
- Others want to ban the mentally ill, and still others think we can ban immorality itself.
Everyone seems to think the answer to preventing future tragedies like Newtown is to ban whatever it is that scares them. Instead of actually dealing with our fears we somehow think we can legislate them away.
What those who rely on banning ____________ all miss (or ignore), is the reality of our humanity:
If there is a market for a good or service, someone will serve that market, legally or not.
If people want assault weapons, they will have them.
If people want high-capacity magazines, they will have them.
If people want to play violent video games or watch violent movies, they will.
Of course we’ve all seen the Prohibition Movies and we know how they end. Black markets and violence.
Despite bans on everything from books, to alcohol, to drugs, guns, gambling, sex, dancing, music, light bulbs, and yes, even in our own country, a ban on teaching others to read and write, somehow we still have ALL of these things.
In short, history and our national experience show us:
1) Banning what scares us does not remove that which scares us; and,
2) That what scares us today may not scare us tomorrow.
So, regardless of our personal or political beliefs, why do we continue to fall prey to the lie that banning _____________ will solve our problems?
For some (usually the high-powered political and business class), it’s because they (or those who support or rely on them) profit from the ban. Of course, being the ones in charge it’s usually their prescription we end up with regardless of whether that prescription is good for us or not. For others, it’s because they’re too stupid, closed-minded, apathetic, or lazy to think of a better solution. And for others still, it’s because in the primitive animal brain we all posses, fear locks up our cognitive decision-making process and makes us vulnerable to accepting solutions we otherwise would not consider.
Thus, when a tragedy like Newtown comes along, we all jump on whatever BANdwagon we most closely align with personally, politically, or financially and away we go.
This is not a solution. In my mind it only fails to serve the victims and families of such tragedies as Newtown with the respect, attention, and resolve to find the real solutions they deserve. Banning ___________ out of a desire to profit, control others, apathy, or otherwise is nothing more than a slap in the face of those whom we have failed. Those who have paid (and will continue to pay) with their lives for our failures.
So, what is the solution?
In a word, liberty.
From the most authoritarian governments where practically all liberty is banned, to so-called ‘freer’ governments, all governments throughout history have negatively addressed the human condition by banning ___________. To my knowledge there has never been a society where the operational premise was based on a confluence of promoting individual liberties while providing a natural deterrence to harm, and at the same time promoting the greatest amount of self-responsibility and self-reliance. What would the laws of such a government look like? In their simplest form, something like this:
1) Do not harm another’s person or property.
2) If you cause harm you shall replace no more or less than at fair market value of the damaged or destroyed property in an equal amount to the harmed in terms acceptable to the harmed.
3) If you cannot repay on such terms you will be hanged until dead.
To paraphrase, “You are free to do whatever you want so long as your actions do not prevent the same of others, but if you do and you cannot make it right, you hang.”
Now. Stop. Think. Do not react.
Let that sink in for a moment. Mull it over and then ask yourself the following Yes or No questions:
Without being given any further explanation of the terms or definitions. . .
Would you benefit from such a simple system?
Would individuals with differing beliefs from yours benefit from such a simple system?
Would corrupt politicians and businesses benefit from such a simple system?
Would honest statesmen, business owners, the markets, the environment, the arts, etc. benefit from such a simple system?
Would such a simple system lower taxes and government spending?
Would such a simple system lower poverty, while increasing educational and financial achievement?
Would such a simple system lower crime and violence?
Would anyone who caused others harm benefit from such a simple system?
Would such a simple system rely on the banning of any number of goods or services?
Would such a simple system rely on changing belief systems (be they secular, religious, statist, etc.)?
Would such a simple system encourage the respect of other’s Private Property Rights?
Would such a simple system provide for the enforcement of the Rule of Law?
Would such a simple system encourage self-responsibility and self reliance?
Would such a simple system reinforce “good” behavior and a society of prosperity and peace?
The answers, of course, are all, “Maybe, maybe not”. But as long as we live in a society that reacts instead of encourages, and restricts instead of frees, we will never know.
What we do know is what we are currently doing isn’t working. It’s time to get off the BANdwagon and try something new.
We need your help! If you like PunditHouse, please consider donating to us. Even $5 a month can make a difference!
Short URL: http://pundithouse.com/?p=12649
The “golden rule” begins to break down pretty quickly in the face of mental illness when killing others is exactly what the deranged would have “done to them”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Not sure what you’re trying to say here. Will reserve comment for a clearer understanding…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What you seem to be describing is a modified, Sharia-esque, version of the the golden rule. The “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is lost on deranged suicidal killers. You could arguably say that in their minds they are following the rule to a horrible fault.
Banning guns doesn’t solve the problem. More laws don’t solve the problem since the “problem” is not just “a” definable problem. Freedom ain’t easy.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Not sure if I agree with or understand the “Sharia-esque” part of your reply, but now I understand the rest of it. From my research, those that would commit violent crime are about 5% of the population. The approach above would take care of that population – either through charity or putting them down. To me, the fact that so many resources go into such a small portion of the population under the current paradigm with such limited success tells me the efforts are more about helping the helpers than the recipients.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The world you describe wouldn’t even be black and white, it would be a line drawing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I question the “… so many resources…” comment. For many forms of insurance the same could be said – ie the concept of pooled risk. It’s in totality that the equation make sense. For the person who has open heart surgery, the benefit outweighs the risk. For the 40 something that drops from an aneurysm the cost outweighs the benefit, BUT only in hind sight do we know which is which. While your 5% may use an inordinate amount of mental treatment dollars, frequently they do not use education or other polls of dollars. I hate to say it, but trying to approach equilibrium is the job of the politician working on the budget – weather local / state / or federal.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jack,
When I talk about the resources we commit to (largely) 5% of the population, I am including, though not limiting myself, to:
911 operators, Police officers, EMTs, Jailers, Med Techs, Cooks, Magistrates, Court Reporters, Baliffs, Prison Guards, attorneys, court physicians and psych people, all the administrative people, as well as the purchase of office supplies, janitorial supplies, computer supplies, and their related sales people, delivery people, and other associated support functions, police and emergency vehicles (and fleet techs) and supplies, etc.
The sheer cost of supporting this infrastructure is staggering. And, it is all one hundred percent non-productive. None of these people or activities produce any wealth. The argument is made they “protect” wealth by keeping the really bad people off the street, but that would only be true if we admitted that the wealth destruction caused by 5% of the population was greater than all the salaries, benefits, supplies, etc., that it costs to contain these people. I don’t think it even comes close.
Am I saying we should get rid of all these jobs? Not entirely, but even if we simply ignored these violent people (in a legal sense) and let natural selection take its course (through concealed carry and castle doctrine laws), along with returning the tax dollars used to support the criminal justice system to the people, I think we could do away with the majority of these non-productive jobs, lower crime, and save a ton of money.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
One other point on how I define “wealth”, “productive” and “non-productive”.
Wealth is the product of labor that comes from digging a raw material out of the ground and transforming those materials into a usable product for which a market exists (meaning you can sell it to people outside of those who are producing it). As an aside, wealth comes from capital, and capital comes from only one place – savings (the unused portion of profits).
In this regard, you are either productive (wealth-creation) or non-productive (wealth-consumption). Every society requires a certain amount of non-productive jobs to facilitate the productive jobs; the problem, of course, is when a society creates more of the latter than the former and relies on debt instead of capital. Such as the US has done, along with a host of other Western nations.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Obama and Holder care so much about reducing gun violence that they let HSBC – caught red handed funding and laundering momey for Mexican Drug Lords & Alquaida – that they let them walk with a cost of doing business fine that is the equivalent of 2 months profit and NO criminal indictments. But Billy Bob needs to have his shotgun confiscated. I guess Billy Bob needs to get busy funding the DNC if he wants to keep his gun. Such evil hypocrites.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
It’s interesting to me that your “knee jerk” reaction to this is the same as what you accuse others of – going to your base philosophy – “In a word, liberty”. I have read with interest many of your past posts – agree with some, disagree with others and/or aspects of same, but one thing you are consistently is a Libertarian.
Your three statements suffer from the same issues that many other proposed solutions to this and many other problems suffer. We pass laws FOR the law abiding, not the criminals and the mentally ill and not always in this class. When you state “… in terms acceptable to the harmed”, you lose me. I key your car and you want $10,000 when most body shops charge less than $2,500 for a paint job. Always when I harm you, where is the incentive NOT to harm you if all I have to pay is the cost. I may not get caught and therefore there is no “punishment” to offset that risk of not getting caught.
Having said that, I agree with your basic premise “liberty is good”. Many people have quoted the number 70,000 for the number of mentally ill that MIGHT do harm / act out. The question is, how much of their liberty (frequently discussions of limiting liberty are discussing others liberty and not our own) are we willing to take away to “have a solution”. Wikipedia actually has a listing of ”rampage killers” (37 out of 243 that are classified as in the US). So the question becomes are we really willing to punish 69,963 people in a hope to stop those 37 people?!?!? Our justice system is based on “it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer” Benjamin Franklin 1785.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jack, thanks for a thoughtful and fleshed out reply.
I’m not sure what you mean when you say my reaction is the same as I accuse others of; would be interested to hear more about this.
Re: “In terms acceptable to the harmed” means once a fair market price for repayment has been set (think civil court) then the harmed can say, “I want the amount in cash” or, perhaps. “I will accept repayment through labor over the next 6 months at $X per hour for doing Y”. Kind of like when kids steal and dad makes them work it off for the victim.
Re: “Where is the incentive NOT to harm…” You seem to imply that my solution suggests if you don’t get caught there is no incentive; I would argue that same issue exists in today’s system. The incentive is, if you can’t repay me you go straight to the gallows. Doesn’t matter if you damaged my $200 mail box and tore up my grass – if you can’t repay or make it right, you hang for $200 and some torn up grass.
Re: “Laws being passed for the law abiding”… I agree totally. Locks are made to keep honest people out. People who are intent on committing crime (be it economic, passionate, violent, etc.) will do what they are going to do. That said, my solution gives the law-abiding the widest latitude to deal with this population themselves. Seeing as the violent crime perpetrators in the US are roughly 5% of the total population, and that these violent people are in the majority repeat offenders, with the popularity of concealed carry and castle doctrine laws, the 95% will take care of the 5% quickly and easily under my proposal.
Not only that, under my proposal, taxes would be dramatically reduced since there would be little need for taxes. Think of how much money would be returned to the private economy and what that money – however used or saved – could/would do toward helping people / preventing otherwise lawful people from being pushed into crime.
Lastly, to address the question, “How much liberty are we willing to take away to have a solution.” To me, and thus as it shows in my proposal, the world is very black and white. If you’re not harming anyone – regardless of how much I may dislike what you’re doing – then you have 100% liberty. If you harm someone and can’t make it right – then you have 0% liberty. Pussyfooting around and inconsistency is what’s gotten us here in the first place. To wit, if you have a child and tell him, “I will spank if you do X” but then you don’t spank him when he does X, or you only spank him sometimes for doing X, what kind of behavior can you expect? That’s our legal system today, and thus it’s no wonder we’re so screwed up. That is why I see the only solution is to give people complete liberty with the one natural law of not harming others, and then drop the hammer when they screw up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
My comment was based on:
Thus, when a tragedy like Newtown comes along, we all jump on whatever BANdwagon we most closely align with personally, politically, or financially and away we go.
…
So, what is the solution?
In a word, liberty.
Are you not jumping on the liberty is always good BANdwagon? Saying we should BAN or perhaps restrict government interference to solve the problem? And to be up front, I would say I lean libertarian and agree with minimizing government, but have issues with practicality of eliminating it. Think EPA and air pollution drift.
In your first list of “bans” I would say you have used clichés (however true they may be) to group your person or group to their action. In several of these grouping I would use the word “control” over scare. In many ways society wants to control the issue and through that control profit from the issue (point of agreement). The weirdest example I can think of is crime and police – wouldn’t controlling crime, put them out of work?
Re: “the 95% will take care of the 5% quickly and easily under my proposal.” But the 95% will continually reproduce the 5% and we are back were we started.
The last paragraph is the issue – I live in a more nuanced world and don’t see it as black and white as you. To apply this to a real world example: legalization of drugs – I would assume (and am VERY familiar with the potential breakdown of that word, but must make assumptions to expedite conversation) that you believe in legalization of drugs? Under that policy, how do we account for the “absentee” parents because they are so wracked out on drugs to care are the children they have. As I once heard and have repeated, if you had a test for being under the influence of marijuana, I would be much more likely to support legalization. Being able to prevent the bad w/out limiting liberty is a GREAT goal.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I wouldn’t call “liberty” a bandwagon. It is a concept as old as man himself. Additionally, liberty is not always “good” or “pretty” – in fact, liberty could lead to our extinction (in a far fetched example we could all decide we didn’t want to work and then we starved to death or killed each off fighting over food). However, I would argue it is better to go extinct in liberty than to live as a slave.
Also, I don’t advocate for the elimination of government. There are some things (such as defense, the settlement of legal issues) where government serves a purpose. That said, in the majority of cases (including the EPA and air pollution) the private sector could just as easily take care of these things – IF we had an educated, involved populace that cared more about the long term than cheap prices.
As for “scare” vs. “control”, I think they work hand in hand. We want to control those things (or people) that scare us. I have written elsewhere that I believe the majority of people, despite what they say, actively WANT to use the threat of govco violence to control other people. People that scare them.
Re: “But the 95% will continually reproduce the 5% and we are back were we started.” In the case of genetic defects, yes. In the case of poor or failed parenting, to degrees. But I believe (and it is just my belief) the majority of people that commit violent crimes are not mentally unstable (at least not chronically if perhaps acutely in the moment, but just don’t know how to control themselves due to failed parenting.
Re: Parents on drugs. Go back and reread the first law. It tells you all you need to know to figure this one out. Harm is harm, doesn’t matter if it’s your child or not. People have a right to put whatever they want in their body as long as they don’t harm other people as a result. That includes their children.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
One other point re: parents on drugs. People who do drugs (either by type or quantity), including alcohol, to the point that they are harming their children would also most certainly be harming others as well. In which case, the civil courts would be removing most of these people via the rope anyway.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sorry for the late response, apparently didn’t subscribe to conversaiton – thanks
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
We stumbled over here coming from a different website and thought I might as well check
things out. I like what I see so now i am following you.
Look forward to looking over your web page repeatedly.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0