Notions of Normalcy and Operating At Capacity

When I was younger, I thought that people were all like me. On the inside, I mean. I thought that even though they looked different, that within that unique but fairly standard packaging they thought in much the same way I did and had the same capabilities and aptitudes. Certainly there were some small number who had mental or physical handicaps-again, whatever their individual packaging consisted of. At heart, though, where it really mattered, I thought any differences could only be shallow ones and that we all had a core that would lead us onto the same basic track.

As I've become a more complex thinker (or at least think of myself as such), I've revisited and re-evaluated this concept. I'm starting to wonder if it is actually more that we tend to operate within a narrow range of mental and physical specifications. What if there are a greater degree of adaptations we encompass instead of a sort of "on/off", "yes/no", "normal/abnormal" status? Instead, there may be a number of significant differences that allow individuals to operate within the confines of our systems. After all, it's not like we're products on an assembly line-there's no stress-testing or design studies on each model. If we manage to do most things for ourselves, that's generally good enough.

I've been hearing this new buzzword "neurodiversity" lately, and I suppose what I'm talking about may relate to it. This is about 30 years after the notion of "multiple intelligences". The idea takes a bit of wind out of IQ and expands from a single "academic/learning" understanding of intelligence into several distinct types. The validity of either point of view is not at issue, I mention it to note that the desire and search to understand how people operate and the way that the internal influences the external is still being examined.

Follow up: Controlling the Workers

In a previous post (Capitalism as Favoritism,15Mar09), I mentioned the concept of business owners wanting "a workforce they can control." I am sure I could have been more clear, and since I want everyone to understand what I mean, that's what I intend to do here. Some may cringe at the mention of "Marxism (historical materialism)" or "Socialism", but I am interested here in analysing a problem of Capitalism and certainly relevant concepts and definitions can be found in both the former "-isms".

The idea is that those who own land and/or businesses (bourgeois: those who own the means of production) want to control those who do the work and/or buy the products (proletariat: workers/consumers). Not that bourgeois want to make the decisions for others, just keep workers less prone to demand better than they are getting. There are a number of ways to go about this, e.g. distraction, political correctness, creating division, etc. The idea being to collect as much power, prestige, and/or wealth as possible, using others to achieve this end.

This hasn't changed much in at least three thousand years. I would go all the way back in time through the Westward Expansion, Industrial Revolution, Colonization and Imperialism, Middle Ages, Renaissance and feudalism, Enlightenment, Dark Ages, the Fall and Rise of the Roman Empire, even to Egypt and Mesopotamia. I am not as familiar with "Eastern" cultures in India, China, or elsewhere, but I imagine many of the same conditions and drives exist in humans worldwide. This is not to say that a majority of citizens subscribe to the notion of ownership and control throughout history and in every culture, just that there are usually greedy, selfish individuals whose desires drive them to overpower others in their pursuits.

In the end, both the desire to gain and maintain power and control as well as the path to getting it has not changed much. This involves gathering a bunch of others together in support of your goals, generally by appealing to their self-preservation. This could mean threats, promises of reward, or just a notion of simplicity. What I mean by this last bit is that not everyone wants to be a big-shot; for many,  it's enough to be told what to do and let someone else worry about long-term issues.

Proclamation

I have to start sometime, and it might as well be now. I am often right, but I keep my mouth shut and let others run the show. I don't speak up or tell people what I know and think because I'm afraid. I see the answers all the time, and can't keep silent anymore.

I have to start somewhere, and it might as well be here. There may not be many who agree with me, but the number who do seems to be growing. I don't reach out to them and say what I feel because I'm afraid. I see the need everywhere I turn, and can't stay silent anymore.

People are in pain. It needs to end. There are things we can do. It is time to start.

Free Wheeling Market Theory

In the United States, I have often heard the proposal that most national issues (not just budgetary) could be alleviated if the government simply stopped its "interference" in business. The biggest problem with this argument is it ignores a ready example. There has been a model in place for many years, but it isn't demonstrating the outcomes claimed by those pro-free market, "laissez-faire" individuals. This may be why those same individuals won't even acknowledge it. The un-regulated, un-incentivised, and un-taxed market I'm referring to is one where goods are available despite the government. So what is this market that is not "interfered with" by the government? Why has it not been incorporated into the main flow of commerce? Because all the goods on the Black Market are illegal.

Of course the example we have is one outside the law, since all other goods and services have been regulated. Their wares include illicit drugs and guns, people (in the form of slaves/prostitutes and other trafficked individuals), and counterfeit or other prohibited items.

I will briefly address the list of grievances from the pro-free marketers: regulations and oversight, incentives or subsidies, taxes, and public (or common) ownership.

The only form of regulation is law enforcement, once past that it's wide open: there is no paperwork, oversight, inspections,  or stockholders to answer to. There isn't any OSHA, safety inspections, quality control, or equal opportunity employment; no right to sue an employer or organize a union, no arbitration or unemployment insurance. Without regulation, workers in the fields involved are egregiously unsafe. Consumers are at risk for more than just lost investments, and have no recourse when injured.

There are no government loans or insurance to get a business started or keep the doors open. This means that any entrepreneurs looking to enter the field must seek investments from private individuals. Also, there is no training program or college degrees to prepare for any of these fields, which makes for excellent opportunities for scams and swindlers.

Another problem is that demand does not drive price-it certainly creates impetus of supply, but it cannot impact how much suppliers charge. There are a limited number of competing suppliers (and often this competition involves literally making a killing).

Finally, these businesses pay no taxes, and that means tremendous amounts of lost revenues for helpful governmental programs. The only taxes or fees for operating one of these businesses are bribes, and that means money going to certain individuals who already have power and not distributed fairly amoungst all citizens. Since they don't offer stock or open to investment, there is no opportunity for citizens-at-large to benefit from the business.

There are risks for these businesses: loss of product, competing providers, and potential for actual governmental interference. Which may be why these areas are illegal, but ineffectually dealt with.

I'd like to pretend that cops are good, laws are just, and that crime doesn't pay. I'm old enough to recognise these notions are myths. If crime didn't pay, we wouldn't still have cocaine, hookers, and, well...politics-as-usual.

An Armed Society is A Violent Society

I have often heard the maxim that, "an armed society is a polite society." Most often I have heard this stated within a conversation about "solving the problem of crime" or lamenting the loss of "good, old-fashioned values". The reasoning goes something like this: more people having firearms means that those with ill intent would not feel they could get away with crimes. To me, this is reminiscent of the "Wild West" era in the United States; a time when firearms were readily available, poorly regulated (if at all), and, most importantly, worn openly. The image of the rough-and-ready "cowboy"/gunslinger, leather holster on hip, willing to draw on another man at any provocation is well known through movies and TV shows. Dramatised, certainly, but grounded in a reality of insecurity and competition. At that time people were actually defending their homes and lives from the threats of outlaw bandits, claim jumpers, and the Native peoples (who were still defending their own rights to the land, which is a tale for another time). These were real threats that no one else could defend these homesteaders and settlers from, they had to do it themselves. The conditions of the "Wild West" no longer obtain, however, and even then they were artificially heightened. Further, we now have trained and armed public servants policing our nation, investigating and preventing crimes. Just turn on your television and you're bound to come across a show involving one or more of these agencies. Their job is not as easy or glamorous as it's shown, but it still gets done. Most property battles are waged in courts now and death most often comes from greasy burgers and automobiles. This discussion is aside from the notion of "Justice". There is no claim by this author that the court system in the United States (or elsewhere) actually administers just and objective outcomes to citizens. This argument is oxymoronic (mostly moronic) in that what is being said is that the constant and pervasive threat of citizens carrying firearms and being responsible to use them to good ends is preferable. This is not an either/or, in that "either we have more guns for people or we will have more crime". This is because there is no correlation between prevalence of guns and crime deterrence.

This does, however, speak to the underlying belief as to the cause and motivation of crimes and those who perpetrate. It is a childish fantasy that their are "good people" and "bad people", and further that the "bad" ones can be deterred by something as silly as threat of violent retaliation. Thanks to researchers like Philip Zimbardo, we can understand better what actually instigates asocial behaviours and drives any individual to "criminal" intent. You really want to give every violently jealous lover, every self-righteous religious believer, and every minimally-competent, "freedom-loving" militia-wannabe-member access to firearms? Because I don't hear the N.R.A. placing any restrictions or competencies for ownership and those are the sorts that are most likely to want a gun in a hurry or "just in case". In my opinion, except for handguns being used by women against their abusive partners (the gun owners, most times) to end their cycle of violence, they have no business being in the hands of private citizens. Even then, there should be better solutions; certainly ones where victims need not go to jail.

In closing, if we take this argument to extremes it could go something like this: we decide on what is a punishable offence, and when that happens, all the nukes go off. Instead of having a gun, everyone can get "The Button", allowing them to stop any crime at any time with a simple press of the finger. The threat is so extreme that no one would dare hurt another individual, right? At least, it's true according to the theory expounded by "gun rights activists" that external control over people can alter their behaviour in all circumstances. In reality, more nuclear warheads have not a safer planet made. The threat of destruction by thermonuclear war is not healthy and has not lead to peace, just an ever-increasing level of posturing. Neither could the threat of bystanders holding "The Button" (or a gun) be a real deterrent. No threat of retaliation can bring reason back into an unreasonable situation.

An Expanded Letter To Gun Sellers

My father, uncles, brothers, and myself have all served in the armed forces. Outside of combat, there is no need or use for most guns. Even then only highly-trained and supervised individuals should be using these dangerous tools. Having assault weapons and high-capacity ammo clips available to anyone else is irresponsible profiteering at best and could be considered aiding terrorists in many ways. The moral thing is to stop all sales of anything other than single-shot, manual-action-bolt rifles used for hunting and legal sports. Simply hiding behind excuses of "there's no law against it" is cowardice and doesn't make a bit of difference to those shot and killed. What would be meaningful is to lead the way by demonstrating that human lives mean more than profits.

That is a message sent to legislative representatives, gun stores, and other retailers. Since I have a bit more space and leeway here, I thought I would expand on it. First, I trust that you know "assault weapon" here refers to automatic and semiautomatic firearms. These fire multiple rounds per second and, in order to maximise their potential damage, call for large "clips" of ammunition. The specification made above for a "manual-action-bolt" would force users to eject the shell and reload the chamber themselves for each shot. I recognise this goes beyond the calls for gun licensing and mandatory background checks, which seem to be the most strenuous and abundant of late. However, I acknowledge that all of these are just precautions to slow things down which offer the illusion of protection. I'm far more interested in solutions that address actual problems than messing about with superficial glossing-over or with appearing to do something. I'd much rather just do what needs done. I am going farther because I feel the only real protection is not having a threat at all.

Guns are a danger that we manufacture. Literally.

If we stop making them and destroy the ones that exist, that actually eliminates the threat. Yes, that is "extreme" and I'm comfortable with the notion. My point really is that all firearms are obsolete, the notion that we would need to shoot each other is a barbaric relic of our past. Of course, facing this requires that we address many other facets of our society such as socioeconomic inequality, ecologically-sustainable and equitable resource management, and the prison-industrial complex. Not popular this, as it's far too comfortable not to even acknowledge them. However, there is no single answer that will eliminate our societal ills. If we are going to make a difference, we need to get serious about how we take on these subjects and accept the hard work that making improvements entails. It's high time we did so.