Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Dak]

Xbox/Microsoft working on making Fahrenheit 451 "Parlor Wall"

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm transferring this from the pics thread:

While I'll be the first to point out there's a difference between malum in se and malum prohibitum, this isn't what they are talking about and you know it.

Who's "they"? The NRA has made it fairly clear that they believe in absolute good and absolute evil.

I would argue that it's worse than actively interpreted, it's outright ignored except for the worst parts, excluding the 2nd Amendment. The 1st Amendment is already half dead.

When someone can show me where the emboldened idea came from other than the minds of people who write for publications like DailyKos, I'd love to see it. Some sort of NRA memo or statement or something from maybe the Reagan era, and some corresponding evidence of a generally accepted public opinion/SCOTUS decision before that time interpreting the 2nd Amendment in some less "libertarian" fashion. As it stands, I call bullshit.

This is pretty well-established:

But the N.R.A. kept pushing—and there’s a lesson here. Conservatives often embrace “originalism,” the idea that the meaning of the Constitution was fixed when it was ratified, in 1787. They mock the so-called liberal idea of a “living” constitution, whose meaning changes with the values of the country at large. But there is no better example of the living Constitution than the conservative re-casting of the Second Amendment in the last few decades of the twentieth century. (Reva Siegel, of Yale Law School, elaborates on this point in a brilliant article.)

The re-interpretation of the Second Amendment was an elaborate and brilliantly executed political operation, inside and outside of government. Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980 brought a gun-rights enthusiast to the White House. At the same time, Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican, became chairman of an important subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he commissioned a report that claimed to find “clear—and long lost—proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms.” The N.R.A. began commissioning academic studies aimed at proving the same conclusion. An outré constitutional theory, rejected even by the establishment of the Republican Party, evolved, through brute political force, into the conservative conventional wisdom.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html

That said, I have no use for the NRA. There are much better organizations, like Gun Owners of America. The NRA is a typical DC insider group. I've done some reading on how they work, and it's pure politics, not principled.

Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Based on some of your other statements, so do rights. So yes, rights are "alienable", particularly when you don't have guns. Isn't that the consistent historical point of gun control?

Politics is already an abstraction. It doesn't grow out of the barrel of a gun; politics (pure and simple) is groups of people, large or small, congregating and deciding on parameters and regulations that best constitute a safe and effective society. As soon as you have like-minded people discussing and implementing how their commune will work, you have politics. These discussions and decisions are entirely arbitrary, as are the distinctions of "rights" that are decided upon.

Whether it's the NRA or GOA, it's politics.

Edit:

Here's hypocrisy: You know what it takes to ban or restrict guns? Guns. When someone proposes a ban or restriction that applies equally to law enforcement and the military, I might take them seriously. Otherwise it's not gun control, it's ratio reduction. It's not because they don't like guns, it's because they don't like non-governmental gun ownership. Hypocrisy. Loads of it (lolz).

Again, who's "they"? The government? The citizenry? The lobbying groups? How can you make a statement like that? Groups like the NRA and GOA are politically motivated, not ethically motivated; and part of their platform is less restrictions for gun owners, universal ownership if individuals so choose. If the NRA is so politically coordinated, as you seem to think, how is it that they continue to encourage individual gun ownership? Draw the lines from there: how is it that the government is getting closer to taking away our guns? That's a paranoiac belief. The government is far from denying private ownership of guns.

The hypocrisy that you're identifying obscures the real damaging hypocrisy, and it's an incredible political move. People actually think the government is coming to take away all privately owned firearms; but the government can't just do as it pleases. It does what the money says it can do; and the money dramatically supports private ownership.

 

[Dak]

Who's "they"? The NRA has made it fairly clear that they believe in absolute good and absolute evil.

They = people using the "Outlawing guns means only outlaws will have guns".

This is pretty well-established:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html

I didn't ask whether or not the NRA changed organizational direction, or whether or not certain people were more inclined towards gun bans or gun ownership. I'm talking about SCOTUS decisions and public opinion. Given the amount of guns per household was higher 50 years ago according to most available data, public opinion doesn't seem to support this understanding. The only gun related SCOTUS decisions I'm aware of are recent, and they have reaffirmed that when it says "the right of the people", it means people. Individuals. You and me.

Politics is already an abstraction. It doesn't grow out of the barrel of a gun; politics (pure and simple) is groups of people, large or small, congregating and deciding on parameters and regulations that best constitute a safe and effective society. As soon as you have like-minded people discussing and implementing how their commune will work, you have politics. These discussions and decisions are entirely arbitrary, as are the distinctions of "rights" that are decided upon.

Whether it's the NRA or GOA, it's politics.

Politics cannot be divorced from power. However, cooperation can.

Again, who's "they"? The government? The citizenry? The lobbying groups? How can you make a statement like that? Groups like the NRA and GOA are politically motivated, not ethically motivated; and part of their platform is less restrictions for gun owners, universal ownership if individuals so choose. If the NRA is so politically coordinated, as you seem to think, how is it that they continue to encourage individual gun ownership? Draw the lines from there: how is it that the government is getting closer to taking away our guns? That's a paranoiac belief. The government is far from denying private ownership of guns.

They = Anti-Private Ownership of Firearms. I won't say anti-gun because I've yet to meet any of these sort who supported the disarmament of the police and military.

Just because APOF policy pushers have been unsuccessful in the last decade isn't for a lack of effort. It's because of of a combination of unsympathetic public opinion and judges.

Obviously issue-focused groups like the NRA and GOA are politically motivated. Just taking the NRA at face value as well, these organizations have to be politically motivated because gun owners are under an armed assault. What the APOF policy pushers are trying to do is aim the guns of the state at them. In response, these organizations must seek to deflect these guns.

The hypocrisy that you're identifying obscures the real damaging hypocrisy, and it's an incredible political move. People actually think the government is coming to take away all privately owned firearms; but the government can't just do as it pleases. It does what the money says it can do; and the money dramatically supports private ownership.

What money? That's about as an ambiguous statement as "they", although I assumed my "theys" would be understood within the context of the portions of your post they corresponded to.

 

[Einherjar86]

They = people using the "Outlawing guns means only outlaws will have guns".

And they believe that because they delineate clearly between "good" and "bad" people. They appeal to the fact that if guns are not regulated, then the people who would not be lawbreakers would use their guns responsibly. This type of "universalist" characterization is part of the problem since it perpetuates the myth of the constant, ineffable and unchangeable human core that constitutes our behavior and also provides us with our rights. It's completely illusory.

I didn't ask whether or not the NRA changed organizational direction, or whether or not certain people were more inclined towards gun bans or gun ownership. I'm talking about SCOTUS decisions and public opinion. Given the amount of guns per household was higher 50 years ago according to most available data, public opinion doesn't seem to support this understanding. The only gun related SCOTUS decisions I'm aware of are recent, and they have reaffirmed that when it says "the right of the people", it means people. Individuals. You and me.

I'm sorry, then I misunderstood you; but I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I'm well aware that the majority of people believe in individual rights, and I don't really care what was originally intended by the Constitution. As I've said before, I'm not an "originalist" nor am I a Constitutionalist, since I see it as nothing more than a piece of paper.

What I do care about is the fact that "rights" discussions completely obscure the issue and preclude any practical, potentially developmental discussion on it. Rights are finicky things, and everyone can claim their own individual right to something, so long as it is an abstraction and not a concrete thing. For instance, I can't claim a right to your house, but I can claim a right to my own well-being and security, and perhaps I interpret that as requiring that my neighbors not own guns. This is the utter stupidity of the argument.

Politics cannot be divorced from power. However, cooperation can.

Disagree entirely and completely.

They = Anti-Private Ownership of Firearms. I won't say anti-gun because I've yet to meet any of these sort who supported the disarmament of the police and military.

Just because APOF policy pushers have been unsuccessful in the last decade isn't for a lack of effort. It's because of of a combination of unsympathetic public opinion and judges.

Obviously issue-focused groups like the NRA and GOA are politically motivated. Just taking the NRA at face value as well, these organizations have to be politically motivated because gun owners are under an armed assault. What the APOF policy pushers are trying to do is aim the guns of the state at them. In response, these organizations must seek to deflect these guns.

I don't understand what you're saying. You're suggesting that the government is preparing to "go to war" on the NRA and other gun-lobbying/interest groups? Where's your proof of that? Simple gun regulations doesn't qualify as armed U.S. soldiers marching through the streets to confiscate private firearms and shut down the NRA and GOA.

What money? That's about as an ambiguous statement as "they", although I assumed my "theys" would be understood within the context of the portions of your post they corresponded to.

The money that businesses and corporations fuel into the political economy. The government can't function without its employees, and their money has to come from somewhere. Interestingly enough, some of it comes from the companies that manufacture those things the government apparently wants to confiscate.

 

[Dak]

And they believe that because they delineate clearly between "good" and "bad" people. They appeal to the fact that if guns are not regulated, then the people who would not be lawbreakers would use their guns responsibly. This type of "universalist" characterization is part of the problem since it perpetuates the myth of the constant, ineffable and unchangeable human core that constitutes our behavior and also provides us with our rights. It's completely illusory.

I don't see a problem here. People do change over time, which is why there are pro-private ownership of gun advocates who even are against criminal background checks (which most find to be an "Extreme" position). Obviously someone with no history of assault etc. could at some point commit an assault. So what?

I'm sorry, then I misunderstood you; but I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I'm well aware that the majority of people believe in individual rights, and I don't really care what was originally intended by the Constitution. As I've said before, I'm not an "originalist" nor am I a Constitutionalist, since I see it as nothing more than a piece of paper.

I was arguing against this statement:

but the truth is that one of the most blatant and obvious moments of constitutional reinterpretation occurred when the NRA re-envisioned the second amendment for its own financial purposes.

That is incorrect. The NRA did change organizational direction to focus on the 2nd Amendment. That doesn't mean it was a reinterpretation.

What I do care about is the fact that "rights" discussions completely obscure the issue and preclude any practical, potentially developmental discussion on it. Rights are finicky things, and everyone can claim their own individual right to something, so long as it is an abstraction and not a concrete thing. For instance, I can't claim a right to your house, but I can claim a right to my own well-being and security, and perhaps I interpret that as requiring that my neighbors not own guns. This is the utter stupidity of the argument.

If "rights" are a finicky thing, "practical" is even more so.

Disagree entirely and completely.

Feel free to expand.

I don't understand what you're saying. You're suggesting that the government is preparing to "go to war" on the NRA and other gun-lobbying/interest groups? Where's your proof of that? Simple gun regulations doesn't qualify as armed U.S. soldiers marching through the streets to confiscate private firearms and shut down the NRA and GOA.

The "government" is made up of individuals. There are plenty of APOF individuals within the government. Have you ever read some of the bullshit that's come out of Eric Holder's mouth? So "the government" only wants to attack APOF only insofar as there are idnividuals within the corporation who do.

No, some regulation doesn't = house to house confiscation, but that's irrelevant.

The money that businesses and corporations fuel into the political economy. The government can't function without its employees, and their money has to come from somewhere. Interestingly enough, some of it comes from the companies that manufacture those things the government apparently wants to confiscate.

I'd love to see some statistics that show all these corporations funneling money into the NRA, outside of gun manufacturers itself. Orgs like NRA and GOA are primarily grassroots based.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't see a problem here. People do change over time, which is why there are pro-private ownership of gun advocates who even are against criminal background checks (which most find to be an "Extreme" position). Obviously someone with no history of assault etc. could at some point commit an assault. So what?

And on top of that, people who pass background checks may still even be intending to commit crimes. One way prosecution teams overturn an insanity plea is by demonstrating premeditation. If someone consciously and sanely chooses to commit a crime, he or she will know how to conceal that decision. Background checks won't actually do much of anything.

Having said that, it's fairly obvious that background checks and more regulatory practices will dissuade certain people from committing crimes with guns. The argument from conservatives usually expresses the belief that people who want to commit crimes will find a way to do so; while this is true, it doesn't mean that every person who may commit some crime will also go through the trouble of acquiring a firearm. Making guns more accessible for everyone will simply make it easier for even petty criminals to acquire them. The inevitable end result of this is that all people will own guns for fear of who might do what to them.

That isn't a solution to the problem, in my opinion.

That is incorrect. The NRA did change organizational direction to focus on the 2nd Amendment. That doesn't mean it was a reinterpretation.

Ah, I see. You should have come right out and said that! My original point was to expose a certain hypocrisy, as I've already said: they proclaim Constitutional "originalism" while actively interpreting it to suit their needs.

Of course, this goes both ways. That is, it only looks like a reinterpretation depending on how you already interpret it.

If "rights" are a finicky thing, "practical" is even more so.

You can draw these semantic confusions out ad infinitum; that doesn't change the fact that behind a discourse on something as ideological as "rights," there exists a way to engage more objectively with the situation. Rights can only ever be a subjective appeal; any attempt to impose a doctrine of "inalienable rights" is an ideological maneuver in favor of certain pre-established beliefs and/or political motivations. That's not a qualitative assessment one way or another; but we're fooling ourselves if we genuinely believe we can arrive at a total and universal doctrine of human rights.

Now, the issue of an arbiter or mediator still stands; I don't deny that. But beyond this practical problem it still stands to reason that there exists the possibility of positive discussion on human existence that doesn't appeal to the notion of rights.

Feel free to expand.

"Politics" is the cooperation of public individuals in order to decide the best method by which to implement governmental/state policies. Politics is often misinterpreted as the moment when governmental institutions come into being, and the process that takes place within/among them; I don't see it this way because politics must be active prior to the establishment of such institutions. Essentially, by their very interaction, individuals engage in politics. Primarily, it is the way interacting public individuals choose to operate within their society; once these decisions are made, legislation is put in place, but politics exists prior to the establishment of legislation. Politics emerges at the very cooperative foundation of societal interaction.

The "government" is made up of individuals. There are plenty of APOF individuals within the government. Have you ever read some of the bullshit that's come out of Eric Holder's mouth? So "the government" only wants to attack APOF only insofar as there are idnividuals within the corporation who do.

No, some regulation doesn't = house to house confiscation, but that's irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant since that's the paranoiac argument coming out of so many conservative mouths, and thus perpetuated among Fox-watchers.

Of course the government is made up of individuals, but that doesn't change the fact that they're getting paid by those same corporations you mentioned. People have their personal beliefs, but that doesn't mean the government as a whole is suddenly going to "go rogue" and start confiscating guns and turning completely against pro-gun activists/interest groups. Besides, how do you think those individuals who have those beliefs got elected? The government functions according to the political economy; it isn't some financially independent beast that somehow attracts APOF politicians. There's a reason they're in office, and it doesn't entirely have to do with popular public opinion. Or, rather, it has to do with public opinion that is actively influenced and manipulated by media outlets. The notion that the "liberal media" somehow has a monopoly on public opinion is outrageous; the media itself is neither "liberal" nor "conservative." It's a highly controlled apparatus.

I'd love to see some statistics that show all these corporations funneling money into the NRA, outside of gun manufacturers itself. Orgs like NRA and GOA are primarily grassroots based.

The NRA contributes money to politicians. It might receive "donations" too, but it influences political decisions by contributing and publicly supporting. And it's certainly backed by influential parties beyond gun manufacturers; the Koch Brothers, for one.

 

[Dak]

And on top of that, people who pass background checks may still even be intending to commit crimes. One way prosecution teams overturn an insanity plea is by demonstrating premeditation. If someone consciously and sanely chooses to commit a crime, he or she will know how to conceal that decision. Background checks won't actually do much of anything.

Having said that, it's fairly obvious that background checks and more regulatory practices will dissuade certain people from committing crimes with guns. The argument from conservatives usually expresses the belief that people who want to commit crimes will find a way to do so; while this is true, it doesn't mean that every person who may commit some crime will also go through the trouble of acquiring a firearm. Making guns more accessible for everyone will simply make it easier for even petty criminals to acquire them. The inevitable end result of this is that all people will own guns for fear of who might do what to them.

That isn't a solution to the problem, in my opinion.

What's the problem?

You can draw these semantic confusions out ad infinitum; that doesn't change the fact that behind a discourse on something as ideological as "rights," there exists a way to engage more objectively with the situation. Rights can only ever be a subjective appeal; any attempt to impose a doctrine of "inalienable rights" is an ideological maneuver in favor of certain pre-established beliefs and/or political motivations. That's not a qualitative assessment one way or another; but we're fooling ourselves if we genuinely believe we can arrive at a total and universal doctrine of human rights.

Now, the issue of an arbiter or mediator still stands; I don't deny that. But beyond this practical problem it still stands to reason that there exists the possibility of positive discussion on human existence that doesn't appeal to the notion of rights.

I don't see where we can go with any discussion of the sort when something along the lines of the Golden Rule isn't observed, which is more or less the basis for negative rights.

"Politics" is the cooperation of public individuals in order to decide the best method by which to implement governmental/state policies. Politics is often misinterpreted as the moment when governmental institutions come into being, and the process that takes place within/among them; I don't see it this way because politics must be active prior to the establishment of such institutions. Essentially, by their very interaction, individuals engage in politics. Primarily, it is the way interacting public individuals choose to operate within their society; once these decisions are made, legislation is put in place, but politics exists prior to the establishment of legislation. Politics emerges at the very cooperative foundation of societal interaction.

Your definition kind of undermines the explanation. Are you and I engaging in politics? Based on your explanation I would assume your answer would be yes, while I would say no. Neither you nor I are making any attempt to coercively impose our beliefs on the other, or on others of the forum. It's merely a discussion.

It's not irrelevant since that's the paranoiac argument coming out of so many conservative mouths, and thus perpetuated among Fox-watchers.

No, it's a slippery slope argument that's being submitted, and it's historically justified as well as justified by the words coming out of the mouths of APOF officials and lobbyists.

Of course the government is made up of individuals, but that doesn't change the fact that they're getting paid by those same corporations you mentioned. People have their personal beliefs, but that doesn't mean the government as a whole is suddenly going to "go rogue" and start confiscating guns and turning completely against pro-gun activists/interest groups. Besides, how do you think those individuals who have those beliefs got elected? The government functions according to the political economy; it isn't some financially independent beast that somehow attracts APOF politicians. There's a reason they're in office, and it doesn't entirely have to do with popular public opinion. Or, rather, it has to do with public opinion that is actively influenced and manipulated by media outlets. The notion that the "liberal media" somehow has a monopoly on public opinion is outrageous; the media itself is neither "liberal" nor "conservative." It's a highly controlled apparatus.

I think you're overlooking the fact that although there may be individuals who are PPOF, POF is a constant threat to the organization they inhabit, and if they feel that the government is in dire threat, there is no reason that the US can't have the exact same scenario that happened in Syria, et al. In a similar scenario, one of two things happens to the PPOF individuals: They defect or convert. Either way, it can happen quite suddenly.

I would agree that the media is neither "liberal" nor "conservative", but not for your reasons. Instead, those terms have become absolutely worthless (if they were ever other otherwise) for accurately describing anything in the US. To suggest that MSM outside of Fox is not overwhelmingly pushing an APOF agenda shows you just don't ever follow any of it. I read CNN/MSNBC/Reuters/HuffPost regularly, and it's a regular feature.

The NRA contributes money to politicians. It might receive "donations" too, but it influences political decisions by contributing and publicly supporting. And it's certainly backed by influential parties beyond gun manufacturers; the Koch Brothers, for one.

Certainly. But that doesn't change the fact it's primarily grassroots based org. I do think it's interesting the amount of negative attention the Koch's receive from the readership base of outlets like HuffPost, to the point where I don't think they can find anyone else to "pin the tail" on. I have issues with the Koch's, but not the same issues.

Edit: For those completely unfamiliar with guns, particularly those confused over politicized terms like "Assault Weapon", and what it means, or more accurately, how myopic using that term is. http://www.assaultweapon.info/

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm aware that you'll probably fundamentally disagree with some of the things I'm going to say.

What's the problem?

The problem is the situation I described; universal gun ownership, or widespread gun ownership, is going to result in more gun crimes/incidents. This has nothing to do with preventing crime through the knowledge of gun ownership, or whether or not the people using guns are responsible or not. The presence of guns will cause gun-related incidents, it's just statistics.

I see that as a problem, and I don't see totalitarianism as the solution.

I don't see where we can go with any discussion of the sort when something along the lines of the Golden Rule isn't observed, which is more or less the basis for negative rights.

A simple empathetic understanding doesn't translate into a discourse of rights. Just as we need to understand "freedom" as an action and not as a pristine condition to be preserved/protected, so do we need to reinterpret "rights" as action; people don't have a right to own guns, they either will own a gun or they won't. When we hypostatize actions (i.e. desires) as "rights," we externalize them and subtract their pathological origin. This actually de-individualizes the notion of human action.

Your definition kind of undermines the explanation. Are you and I engaging in politics? Based on your explanation I would assume your answer would be yes, while I would say no. Neither you nor I are making any attempt to coercively impose our beliefs on the other, or on others of the forum. It's merely a discussion.

Politics doesn't constitute coercion, as I was trying to emphasize. That's a reductive definition.

No, it's a slippery slope argument that's being submitted, and it's historically justified as well as justified by the words coming out of the mouths of APOF officials and lobbyists.

Not really. In my opinion, anyway...

I think you're overlooking the fact that although there may be individuals who are PPOF, POF is a constant threat to the organization they inhabit, and if they feel that the government is in dire threat, there is no reason that the US can't have the exact same scenario that happened in Syria, et al. In a similar scenario, one of two things happens to the PPOF individuals: They defect or convert. Either way, it can happen quite suddenly.

The private ownership of firearms is not a threat though. I've specified before that if a massive, total revolution took place, private citizens would outnumber the military and would likely succeed. But there are overwhelming numbers of people who don't care to own guns at all; there is no imminent threat to the military industrial complex, or whatever we want to call it, and there's no reason to assume that the government projects that threat.

Your understanding of the relationship between citizens and government as antagonistic is correct (to an extent) but misplaced. There is no conscious desire among government officials or politicians to oppress the population and actively take away our "rights." This is purely an emergent consequence of governmental control. It isn't some shadow agency or malign entity out to get us. Representations such as Orwell's "Big Brother" should not be taken literally; they're metaphorical expressions of totalitarian states, just as The Matrix is a metaphorical expression of totalitarianism.

Laws, regulations, limitations, etc. by their very nature infringe on human action, but this is not an intentionally malign act. We need to differentiate between government as the enemy of the people (an effective and convincing fiction) and government simply as a kind of super-conscious expression of political interests, which will inevitably result in contradictions. Now certainly, this isn't a perfect one-to-one analogy; but it's irrational to define government as that which is wholly opposed to the human.

I would agree that the media is neither "liberal" nor "conservative", but not for your reasons. Instead, those terms have become absolutely worthless (if they were ever other otherwise) for accurately describing anything in the US. To suggest that MSM outside of Fox is not overwhelmingly pushing an APOF agenda shows you just don't ever follow any of it. I read CNN/MSNBC/Reuters/HuffPost regularly, and it's a regular feature.

Certainly. But that doesn't change the fact it's primarily grassroots based org. I do think it's interesting the amount of negative attention the Koch's receive from the readership base of outlets like HuffPost, to the point where I don't think they can find anyone else to "pin the tail" on. I have issues with the Koch's, but not the same issues.

And yet all these groups and outlets, despite their disparate views and agendas, are embroiled in the politico-economic system. All the views presented simply perpetuate the current state of things. Even with all the overwhelming APOF positions being taken, very little will happen. The function of the paranoid argument is to create such an excess of opposition that any political action at all seems dangerously dystopian; thus very little, if anything, gets done.

 

[Dak]

The problem is the situation I described; universal gun ownership, or widespread gun ownership, is going to result in more gun crimes/incidents. This has nothing to do with preventing crime through the knowledge of gun ownership, or whether or not the people using guns are responsible or not. The presence of guns will cause gun-related incidents, it's just statistics.

I see that as a problem, and I don't see totalitarianism as the solution.

Ok, so gun related incidents are a problem. "Totalitarianism" isn't the answer, but that's kind of a subjective term. We have "incidents" of all kinds, depending on what the tool/location is, and yet when these incidents occur, these things usually aren't banned or restricted. They definitely get no media coverage. What is the normal course of action? Education.

Separately, you are using (I assume unintentionally) deceptive language re: "universal gun ownership, or widespread gun ownership, is going to result in more gun crimes/incidents." More compared to what? Some absolute standard such as zero, or some relative standard?

A simple empathetic understanding doesn't translate into a discourse of rights. Just as we need to understand "freedom" as an action and not as a pristine condition to be preserved/protected, so do we need to reinterpret "rights" as action; people don't have a right to own guns, they either will own a gun or they won't. When we hypostatize actions (i.e. desires) as "rights," we externalize them and subtract their pathological origin. This actually de-individualizes the notion of human action.

The concept of a right is a political creation. Negative rights are supposed to be areas where governments have no business pointing their guns. I don't even consider positive "rights" rights, as they require violating negative rights.

Politics doesn't constitute coercion, as I was trying to emphasize. That's a reductive definition.

It's not reductive if it's the definition of the word.

From MW:

politics: the art or science of government

the act or process of governing; specifically : authoritative direction or control

or

the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions and which is usually classified according to the distribution of power within it

Etc.

Not really. In my opinion, anyway...

So you are saying private disarmament hasn't proceeded (multiple) mass killings in the last 100 years perpetrated by governments, and that APOF officials and activists haven't submitted that to seize guns we first need a list of who has them?

The private ownership of firearms is not a threat though.

So why have totalitarian governments disarmed their citizens? If POF are not a threat, why bother with that hassle?

There is no conscious desire among government officials or politicians to oppress the population and actively take away our "rights."

Is this intended to be an absolute statement? There is no one at any level of government who wishes for a totalitarian state?

Laws, regulations, limitations, etc. by their very nature infringe on human action, but this is not an intentionally malign act. We need to differentiate between government as the enemy of the people (an effective and convincing fiction) and government simply as a kind of super-conscious expression of political interests, which will inevitably result in contradictions. Now certainly, this isn't a perfect one-to-one analogy; but it's irrational to define government as that which is wholly opposed to the human.

All laws are not equal. However, if you accept that government (not authority) requires coercion to function, and coercion = violence or the threat thereof. Violence is opposed to the human. So government is opposed to the human.

And yet all these groups and outlets, despite their disparate views and agendas, are embroiled in the politico-economic system. All the views presented simply perpetuate the current state of things. Even with all the overwhelming APOF positions being taken, very little will happen. The function of the paranoid argument is to create such an excess of opposition that any political action at all seems dangerously dystopian; thus very little, if anything, gets done.

"The battle is in the realm of ideas". Biden has stated "we have to act quickly" on any gun control measures [before the blood dries]. Outside of this sort of situation, an intelligent counseling response to kneejerk emotional reactions in the aftermath of a tragedy is to not make any sort of knee jerk reactions until you have calmed down. Why is this scenario the opposite. Not that this tactic is limited to "gun control" or any particular political position (although Rahm Emanuel, a Democrat, is most famous for laying it out as a strategy):



Of course Neocons did the exact same thing in the wake of 9/11, FDR had the New Deal in the wake of the market crash (caused by the relatively new central bank, itself reactionary to comparatively small "panics" of the late 19th/early 20th century).

This is just another example of what people like myself refer to as the hypocrisy between the "public" and "private" spheres. We accept all sorts of things to be true in our personal lives, such as don't steal, kill, don't make hasty decisions while distraught, etc.

Then we enter the "public" sphere and all that stuff is completely turned on it's head. And we wonder where all our problems come from.

 

[Einherjar86]

Ok, so gun related incidents are a problem. "Totalitarianism" isn't the answer, but that's kind of a subjective term. We have "incidents" of all kinds, depending on what the tool/location is, and yet when these incidents occur, these things usually aren't banned or restricted. They definitely get no media coverage. What is the normal course of action? Education.

Separately, you are using (I assume unintentionally) deceptive language re: "universal gun ownership, or widespread gun ownership, is going to result in more gun crimes/incidents." More compared to what? Some absolute standard such as zero, or some relative standard?

Universal gun ownership would inevitably result in more gun crimes than we currently have. Deregulation might solve a problem concerning "individual rights," but it creates a whole other problem. And yes, I think it's a problem.

The concept of a right is a political creation. Negative rights are supposed to be areas where governments have no business pointing their guns. I don't even consider positive "rights" rights, as they require violating negative rights.

Of course it's a political/legislative creation. That doesn't mean political discussion has to involve a discussion of rights; it can involve a discussion on the dismantling of rights.

It's not reductive if it's the definition of the word.

It can absolutely still be reductive. Identifying politics as coercion is reductive, even if it's the Merriam Webster definition. People often discuss "emancipatory politics," but that's not a misuse of the word.

So you are saying private disarmament hasn't proceeded (multiple) mass killings in the last 100 years perpetrated by governments, and that APOF officials and activists haven't submitted that to seize guns we first need a list of who has them?

I'm not saying that. I'm saying there won't be a massive, universal disarmament.

So why have totalitarian governments disarmed their citizens? If POF are not a threat, why bother with that hassle?

Again, we're not totalitarian.

Is this intended to be an absolute statement? There is no one at any level of government who wishes for a totalitarian state?

If there is one person, somewhere, sitting in a dimly-lit closet and conspiring on how he can get a memo into the oval office for the president to sign that will allow the government to confiscate all private firearms, I don't think that will make much difference. Again, I interpret government as an emergent system. This means it operates according to a more complex logic than the conspiratorial aims of a small group of people.

You seem to have this notion that we are perilously close to slipping in the same direction that the Soviet Union did, or that Germany did, or that China did. I think this is a misinterpretation of our current global state. If anything, we're going to "change" into something that is technologically vastly different from anything in the twentieth century, and most likely it is not something that we'll be able to prevent. Now, as far as our politico-economic system goes, our representative conditions (i.e. the way in which we communicate with, and relate to, our government) are very different from the U.S.S.R., Germany, or any other behemoth of 20th-century totalitarianism. The proclamation that we're a "socialist country" is rather absurd, although we have socialist elements and programs.

All laws are not equal. However, if you accept that government (not authority) requires coercion to function, and coercion = violence or the threat thereof. Violence is opposed to the human. So government is opposed to the human.

This is logically very inept. For one, you're equating a part to a whole. Furthermore, you're assuming that part is necessary.

Finally, you're proclaiming to separate government/politics and developed human interaction. The moment our consciousness developed to the point where it communicated in symbols, its symbol-structure allowed for the creation of what we know as "culture," and political discussion and interaction became absolutely necessary because human language/being is interpretation. We lack the immediate instinctual response of "pre-conscious" animals. Your ideality of an apolitical existence is entirely fantastical lacking some cognitive/technological evolution. It imagines the human individual as total, in and of itself; but this simply isn't the case.

If I acknowledge that an aspect of government is opposed to the human, it is in the sense that the prohibition of certain desires is anathema to human existence; but this prohibition of individual desires is exactly what something like the Golden Rule proposes to do. Essentially, we have to admit that there is already something of the human that is opposed to the human.

"The battle is in the realm of ideas". Biden has stated "we have to act quickly" on any gun control measures [before the blood dries]. Outside of this sort of situation, an intelligent counseling response to kneejerk emotional reactions in the aftermath of a tragedy is to not make any sort of knee jerk reactions until you have calmed down. Why is this scenario the opposite. Not that this tactic is limited to "gun control" or any particular political position (although Rahm Emanuel, a Democrat, is most famous for laying it out as a strategy):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yeA_kHHLow

Of course Neocons did the exact same thing in the wake of 9/11, FDR had the New Deal in the wake of the market crash (caused by the relatively new central bank, itself reactionary to comparatively small "panics" of the late 19th/early 20th century).

This is just another example of what people like myself refer to as the hypocrisy between the "public" and "private" spheres. We accept all sorts of things to be true in our personal lives, such as don't steal, kill, don't make hasty decisions while distraught, etc.

Then we enter the "public" sphere and all that stuff is completely turned on it's head. And we wonder where all our problems come from.

This is because the private subject cannot be constituted on the same level as the public. In an immediate existence with our own bodies, we possess the power to make uncontroversial decisions (i.e. I can take a razor to my own skin, since I enjoy the pain, although I cannot do this to another person). As soon as the multitude comes into play, these decisions are complicated; "do unto others as you would want done unto you" doesn't hold water if someone enjoys being branded with a cattle prod.

Your proposal of a golden rule-type imperative is nothing more than the call for politics without naming it politics; unfortunately, I see it as an inadequate form of politics.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

10 Crimes That Get You Less Prison Time Than What Aaron Swartz Faced for Freeing JSTOR Articles
The young hacker (who committed suicide) faced a harsher prison than that for manslaughter, bank robbery, or selling slaves.

http://www.alternet.org/10-awful-cr...hat-aaron-swartz-faced-freeing-jstor-articles

 

[Dak]

Universal gun ownership would inevitably result in more gun crimes than we currently have. Deregulation might solve a problem concerning "individual rights," but it creates a whole other problem. And yes, I think it's a problem.

I don't know where "universal gun ownership" came from. I'm not advocating that everyone be forced to own a firearm. But the US already has the highest per capita gun ownership in the world by a long shot, and yet is not the top country in violence at all, much less gun violence.

"More guns = more gun incidents" is an incorrect statement unless more is x>0. "Universal gun ownership" is changing the context of the discussion.

Of course it's a political/legislative creation. That doesn't mean political discussion has to involve a discussion of rights; it can involve a discussion on the dismantling of rights.

For a government/majority to dismantle rights means to subject people to violence in those respective areas. The right to initiate violence is one that government declares. Why not dismantle that right?

It can absolutely still be reductive. Identifying politics as coercion is reductive, even if it's the Merriam Webster definition. People often discuss "emancipatory politics," but that's not a misuse of the word.

If people are seeking emancipation from some portion of the overarching violent structure by utilizing the system against itself, it's not a misuse of the word and does not contradict the definition. You are seeing an "or" when it's an "and".

I'm not saying that. I'm saying there won't be a massive, universal disarmament.

Again, we're not totalitarian.

Not now, not yet. Totalitarian countries, particularly ones where mass killings occurred, were not always in that political shape. But to suggest it can't happen now or in the future at any given local is naive. It was happening in the 1st world when [your] grandparents were [your] age, and it was happening in the 3rd world when [your] parents were [your] age. This is not ancient history. This is in modern times.

The point again being that there is no legitimate reason to disarm a population if not for organizational safety. Otherwise, both the population and the organization would be disarmed. This never happens.

The closest thing we can find internationally was the disbanding of the Costa Rican military following a coup. But there is still a domestic paramilitary agency.

If there is one person, somewhere, sitting in a dimly-lit closet and conspiring on how he can get a memo into the oval office for the president to sign that will allow the government to confiscate all private firearms, I don't think that will make much difference. Again, I interpret government as an emergent system. This means it operates according to a more complex logic than the conspiratorial aims of a small group of people.

Small and large group(s) plural. That's what all the different PACs and lobby groups etc are. Different groups of different sizes all with conflicting ideas of where to aim the guns of government, conspiring on how to seize control of said guns.

To say it's "emergent" is irrelevant. All human action and organization is "emergent". Organized crime as a whole is emergent, to include government.

You seem to have this notion that we are perilously close to slipping in the same direction that the Soviet Union did, or that Germany did, or that China did. I think this is a misinterpretation of our current global state. If anything, we're going to "change" into something that is technologically vastly different from anything in the twentieth century, and most likely it is not something that we'll be able to prevent. Now, as far as our politico-economic system goes, our representative conditions (i.e. the way in which we communicate with, and relate to, our government) are very different from the U.S.S.R., Germany, or any other behemoth of 20th-century totalitarianism. The proclamation that we're a "socialist country" is rather absurd, although we have socialist elements and programs.

This either-or reasoning is fallacious. I'm not suggesting that 21st or 22nd century totalitarianism is going to share identical aesthetical traits with 19th and 20th century totalitarianism.

I also don't recall mentioning "socialist". Except maybe NK, pretty much the entire world functions(poorly) as a "mixed" economy.

This is logically very inept. For one, you're equating a part to a whole. Furthermore, you're assuming that part is necessary.

The violence [part] is absolutely necessary to the whole. Otherwise the rest of the structure is pointless. Laws are not suggestions, they are all directions with an implicit and/or explicit threat of death for resistance. All laws are punishable ultimately with death, because to resist a lower level of punishment will lead to an escalation of force.

Finally, you're proclaiming to separate government/politics and developed human interaction. The moment our consciousness developed to the point where it communicated in symbols, its symbol-structure allowed for the creation of what we know as "culture," and political discussion and interaction became absolutely necessary because human language/being is interpretation. We lack the immediate instinctual response of "pre-conscious" animals. Your ideality of an apolitical existence is entirely fantastical lacking some cognitive/technological evolution. It imagines the human individual as total, in and of itself; but this simply isn't the case.

I emboldened developed because that is the key word that statement hinges on. Obviously political action is a portion of human action. But developed is rather ambiguous so I don't really know how to approach this.

I know as long as human action exists, political (violent) action will exist to a more or less degree. It just does not have to be celebrated and institutionalized. It can be treated with revulsion like we treat the highwayman not in a "State Trooper" car, or the thief not in an IRS suit.

If I acknowledge that an aspect of government is opposed to the human, it is in the sense that the prohibition of certain desires is anathema to human existence; but this prohibition of individual desires is exactly what something like the Golden Rule proposes to do. Essentially, we have to admit that there is already something of the human that is opposed to the human.

It's been said by many that the Golden Rule was poorly state/ written in an ambiguous sense, since what it inferred can be misconstrued, and a less vague restatement would be "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them". We could accept that some humans are opposed to other humans, but so what and why?

This is because the private subject cannot be constituted on the same level as the public. In an immediate existence with our own bodies, we possess the power to make uncontroversial decisions (i.e. I can take a razor to my own skin, since I enjoy the pain, although I cannot do this to another person). As soon as the multitude comes into play, these decisions are complicated; "do unto others as you would want done unto you" doesn't hold water if someone enjoys being branded with a cattle prod.

Your proposal of a golden rule-type imperative is nothing more than the call for politics without naming it politics; unfortunately, I see it as an inadequate form of politics.

Refer to above. Using your razor example, why does this need to be a matter of politics? You like using a razor on yourself. Someone else does not. Where's the problem? Now, as soon as you want to use a razor on someone else, we have the possibility of a voluntary or involuntary interaction. Assuming it's involuntary, since you cannot overcome the person yourself, you go find the other slashers and get enough to make it legal so you can run around slashing and cutting to your hearts content. This is the system we have now, simplified. It's rotten.

 

[Einherjar86]

I should say that there is a direct relationship between the amount of guns in circulation and the number of gun-related incidents. That is what I mean. You never mentioned "universal gun ownership"; I drew that as a logical conclusion from a society where the acquisition of guns is deregulated. The first people who will acquire guns in that scenario are people who want to use them for a specific immediate purpose (i.e. crime). The remainder of "law-abiding" citizens will thus find themselves compelled to acquire guns in order to protect themselves. All of the sudden, everyone owns a gun. This wouldn't happen immediately, but it's completely rational to assume this would be the case.

I don't have time to respond to all your points, but my overarching complaint is your confidence in the idea of the "complete" human. When I say that something of the human is opposed to the human, I'm not talking about different individual human animals. I'm saying that a human animal is, in itself, a divided subject and cannot be delineated as a universally rational subject that will respond and behave according to your conservative views on human nature. Politics has become our means of trying to facilitate the cooperation and interaction of multitudinous personalities. Politics, in and of itself, shouldn't be demonized, even if certain institutional manifestations of it should be.

I've quoted Gilles Deleuze before, who wrote that at some level the German people "wanted" fascism, and you agreed with this. This is not to say, however, that people should not desire some mode of politics. Your reasoning identifies all governmental/political apparatuses as unnecessary and anathema because they resort to violence; but while it's true that governments reserve an arbitrary "right" to enforce law through coercion, this is not something that is anathema to human existence. In fact, it's central to human existence; we can't be divorced from the violent gap that subsists in subjectivity itself. Politics is the way in which we attempt to facilitate our cooperative and communitarian existence in this world. The various modes of politics that have emerged throughout history may have proven misguided or outright horrifying; but this doesn't mean that political action is inherently bad. As of this moment, it is the best possible means we have of relating ourselves to the world, lacking some further cognitive or technological development.

 

[Dak]

I should say that there is a direct relationship between the amount of guns in circulation and the number of gun-related incidents. That is what I mean. You never mentioned "universal gun ownership"; I drew that as a logical conclusion from a society where the acquisition of guns is deregulated. The first people who will acquire guns in that scenario are people who want to use them for a specific immediate purpose (i.e. crime). The remainder of "law-abiding" citizens will thus find themselves compelled to acquire guns in order to protect themselves. All of the sudden, everyone owns a gun. This wouldn't happen immediately, but it's completely rational to assume this would be the case.

I'm fine putting the rest of the tangential portion of the discussion on the back burner and focusing again the original topic and that is guns.

Considering the supposed ease of gun acquisition now, you would think the situation you described would have already occurred. But it hasn't. I think the above scenario is baseless conjecture, and not rational at all, even in some form of market anarchy.

 

[Einherjar86]

Deregulating guns will not stop those who wish to use them "irresponsibly" from doing so; it merely facilitates their access to guns. The only way that deregulation prevents/lowers crime is if everyone bought a gun, since the argument is that guns will a) discourage crime, and b) allow "law-abiding citizens" to stop criminals in the act. Guns need to actually be in circulation in order for this argument to hold.

The delineation between "good" and "bad" people is implicit in this argument, and it completely obscures the larger issue: namely, that this scenario invites widespread, if not universal, gun ownership and will inevitably result in far more gun-related incidents, be they "criminal" or not.

 

[Dak]

Deregulating guns will not stop those who wish to use them "irresponsibly" from doing so; it merely facilitates their access to guns. The only way that deregulation prevents/lowers crime is if everyone bought a gun, since the argument is that guns will a) discourage crime, and b) allow "law-abiding citizens" to stop criminals in the act. Guns need to actually be in circulation in order for this argument to hold.

The delineation between "good" and "bad" people is implicit in this argument, and it completely obscures the larger issue: namely, that this scenario invites widespread, if not universal, gun ownership and will inevitably result in far more gun-related incidents, be they "criminal" or not.

To specifically answer "everyone must own a gun", that is incorrect. The uncertainty factor acts as a deterrent as well. If there are no restrictions on gun ownership, particularly driven by popular public policy, a criminal must take into consideration the distinct possibility that any potential victim is armed.

This is one reason why crime has gone down after the city gun bans in Chicago and DC were struck down.

 

[Dak]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-signs-law-giving-himself-bush-lifetime-secret-184305122--politics.html

Moving on: Referencing my distinction between APOF and PPOF. Here's a perfect example.

Former presidents have to give up rides on Air Force One. But now they don't have to give up being shadowed by the armed-and-earpieced bodyguards of the Secret Service.
President Barack Obama on Thursday signed into a law a measure giving him, George W. Bush and future former presidents and their spouses lifetime Secret Service protection, the White House announced.
The legislation, crafted by Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, rolls back a mid-1990s law that imposed a 10-year limit on Secret Service protection for former presidents. Bush would have been the first former commander in chief affected.
At the time, lawmakers who supported the measure said it would save the government millions of dollars. They also argued that former presidents could hire private security firms (as Richard Nixon did after he decided to forgo Secret Service protection in 1985).
The bill had sailed through Congress with bipartisan support—it cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote in early December, and then it zipped through the Senate unopposed. The law also provides protection for former presidents’ kids until age 16. But “protection of a spouse shall terminate in the event of remarriage.”
The Secret Service started protecting presidents in 1901 after the assassination of William McKinley. In 1965, Congress passed a law authorizing the agency, which is now a part of the Department of Homeland Security, to protect former presidents for life.

So in a time of fiscal trouble, and heated gun rhetoric, Congress and the current President insure that millions in the future are spent surrounding all presidents, for life, with men with guns.

 

[Dak]

http://www.prettyfedup.com/pfu/philosophical/whyarepeoplesostupid.htm

Regular readers will enjoy this (Jimmy and Pat?)

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

I read the first page. Funny stuff. I come from a really stupid family, my parents were the type that left me in the car for an hour at the age of 6 so they can fucking shop (Yes, that stupid). When I see my shortcomings and stupidities I can't help but question my genes.

I'll continue reading.

 

[Einherjar86]

Pretty entertaining; but I don't think sticking a bone through one's nose qualifies one as stupid. That's a harsh value judgment that is.