That's simplistic. Actually, to better understand the situation you must follow the money. Many 2nd Amendment supporters are reasonable, but unfortunately, over decades their casual support has been utilized by lobbyists whose goals do not necessarily align with many supporters. The challenge is to communicate that message in a way that reaches everyone.
We just need to reduce the number of guns. I've not met a 2nd amendment supporter who understands this basic idea. They are always convinced one of the following retorts should be the end of the conversation (they also proudly think you've never heard these cliched arguments):
- They have knife stabbings in China. (Yes. A gun is more lethal.)
- A bad guy can still get a gun. (Yes.)
- Hand guns are more dangerous than rifles. (This means let's reduce both.)
- The gun doesn't kill people. People kill people. (This means let's reduce how many people have guns.)
- Mass shootings aren't the majority of gun deaths. (Let's reduce the total gun deaths and mass shootings then.)
Come up with as many ridiculous retorts as you like. If you had reduced the total number of guns, most of the shootings could not have happened.
This list is spot on, and the biggest fuel on the fire is the problem of huge financial incentives. I can assure you there are some supporters out there who do understand. Some who do not understand have certainly been fed talking points by entities who may or may not care about the intent of the 2nd Amendment exactly, but definitely do care about making money.
Don't you think the populace needs to be armed though? I think its a given that eventually the government will be intolerably corrupt and a revolution will be necessary. Nobody denies that less guns -> less shootings. The logic is that some amount of shootings are tolerable to preserve democracy, and that if our goal is to reduce mass shootings, social reforms intended to improve mental health are the correct choice.
Imagine you are in charge of a monkey enclosure. The monkeys sometimes go crazy and kill each other with rocks. You can:
A: Remove all rocks. Monkeys stay suicidally miserable but can't inflict harm as easily. Problem solved?
B: Mitigate conditions that make them suicidally miserable. Some say its impossible, but then again, just a generation ago the monkeys had rocks without frequent violence.
Why is it that only our country needs to be armed, but none of the others do? Do Germans need to be armed? Do Indians need to be armed? Maybe you could argue that Chinese people need to be armed, but every Chinese person I've met seems to like their government right now and is content with the levels of surveillance. Maybe arming the Uyghurs could have helped but somehow I doubt it.
All populations should be armed. The current democratic, liberal order in Europe is just a side effect of America's dominance, the same America that is the product of the revolution of a well armed population. Your counterpoint might be the U.K., which has arrested 12,000 people for social media posts recently.
The catch is, it only works with an enlightened, well educated population with philia and a sense of civic duty. Arming inner city Chicago has been a disaster.
That's tough to maintain that state, but we have to try, because if a population doesn't fit that description the country turns to shit and you won't want to live there. To disarm is to admit we can't be an enlightened country anymore and we won't try, and after that its just a matter of time until there is nothing special about America and its just another mediocre third world dump.
If a government were run by quakers, should the population require the same level of armament as if it were run by Attila? Perhaps by creating better governments we could reduce the need to arm populations.
I just don't see what arming citizens is going to do against a militaristic government.
Yes, because the idea is to establish an armed populace before society succumbs to tyranny, not in response to it. The central tenet is that even if a society is run by Quakers now, it won't always be, because in the absence of proper inputs societies tend to decay to their stable basal state which is despotism. When that happens, the population must be armed in order to revolt and restore a democratic system. I would even say its better to arm the populace while the government is still Quaker because that would establish the proper cultural mores surrounding gun ownership in an enlightened environment - e.g. knowing that gun ownership is a responsibility and right, connecting it with ideas of liberty and civic duty, viewing them as a last resort, learning about guns from your father and not your homie on the corner.
You need to have the population armed beforehand. Its not practical to try to dynamically adjust how armed the populace is in proportion to perceived governmental Attila-ness.
To your last point, an armed populace makes revolt feasible, and there is a spectrum here. The key is that the oligarchy will need to convince the army to stay on its side and punish the revolting populace. The more sacrifice and violence that is required, the harder it is to keep convincing them. Also, look at the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan: an armed, hostile populace is just much harder to control than an unarmed one. It dramatically increases the cost of every excursion from a military base, the number of soldiers required to subjugate an area, etc, and the grand lesson from those conflicts is that boots on the ground are still needed to control an area, and that technological solutions like drone strikes still don't scale well enough and aren't cleanly targeted enough to change that. Perhaps that will change in the future, but I actually suspect that the prevalence of consumer drones will maintain the power of the public to resist the military. Look at Ukraine and Russia; the dominant weapon system now is the consumer drone, eclipsing even artillery, which has democratizing implications for the future of the tug-of-war between societies and their governments.
Well it's been interesting talking to you. In good faith, I honestly cannot conceive of how arming the population prevents tyranny though. You give the example of Iraq and Afghanistan. Presumably you're saying the tyranny was the US occupation? Weren't these groups armed not before, but as a result of first (I believe) soviet and then American occupations?
Are there examples in modern times of a stable society consisting of a heavily armed population such that as a result of this tyranny has been curbed? Americans are the most heavily armed population in the world and it seems that tyranny is measurably setting in right now. The stability seems like it was higher in the beginning of the 20th century too. The 60-70's and now are the most unstable periods I believe, and the number of guns has only increased. So I don't think the US would be a good example.
In good faith, I cannot see how arming civilians reduces tyranny in modern times, unless your model actually is Afghanistan and Iraq. In those cases it's not that all civilians are armed. There are armed groups. That's not a world I want to live in though, anyways.
Yes, the tyranny in Iraq was the US occupation, though I am merely using it as an example that an armed, civilian populace can resist military control, not commenting on the morality of the occupation.
FWIW, Iraq was already well armed before the occupation, and looting of state arsenals in the chaos of the invasion amplified this. Afghanistan was a similar situation but armed networks were already organized moreso before the US occupation.
I don't think there are examples in very modern times of an enlightened, armed populace revolting against tyranny. The most recent I can think of is the Irish war of independence. They had low gun ownership, but correctly recognized the attainment of arms as of utmost importance, and it was through arms that they obtained liberty. I also still think that the American revolution is a fair example because the fundamental dynamic is still relevant. The Algerian war of independence comes to mind as well, which was more recent, though they were neither enlightened nor well-armed at the outset. Generally an enlightened society will produce a democracy which will take centuries to decay to the point of warranting revolt, and we are still in the first generation of these.
To your point about the US, merely having an armed populace does not gradually move society away from tyranny. The mental model myself and the founding fathers have is that even in the case of an armed populace, democratic institutions eventually decay to the point that the government is corrupt, despotic and intolerable. Its just entropy, as happens to our bodies. The population then revolts, and installs a democratic government, which then starts to decay again, and the cycle repeats. The fact that America is moving in a bad direction is confirmation of this tendency to decay, and not in any way antithetical to my stance. Eventually the decay surpasses a threshold which triggers the guns to come into play and reset the system.
Except they're under pressure to not exercise such wide latitude. A few months ago, many who had already passed the exam and were just awaiting placement found out they would have to retake the exam, a different one more to the liking of the current administration:
I'm quite aware of the origin, but I appreciate you posting the link for others' edification.
For one with less confusion about the speaker: "For my friends everything, for my enemies the law." --Oscar R. Benavides, President of Peru from 1933 to 1939
I'll never forget the first time I heard his name. As a kid, I had seen the Spielberg film Empire of the Sun starring a young Christian Bale and considered it one of my favorites. When I was an adult eagerly showing it to friends, one of them who was a theater major loudly exclaimed during the opening credits, "Tom Stoppard wrote the screenplay?!" I knew most of the names in the opening credits but had no idea who Tom Stoppard was until that moment.
When he passed away a couple days ago, I was surprised to discover he was originally from a Moravian town I've been to since one of my ancestors grew up 10 miles farther down the road. The twists and turns his family took escaping from there to the other side of the world and back no doubt enhanced his keen insight into people.
My first job out of college was over 2 decades ago, and I was hired to work on a web app which was considered new technology. But an important application there that was used by hundreds of people around the country was written with Pick, and the owner of the company also had some local Houston businesses whose Pick applications he occasionally did maintenance work on. The owner had moved from Chicago to Houston at the beginning of the 80s because he was able to get a high-paying job with no degree, but when the oil bust happened he learned Pick programming from an older guy and did so well when he started his own business that he retired early.
Houstonian here. I’m guessing you’re in Plano. I’ve been all over Texas: cities, suburbs, small towns and many relatives’ and friends’ farms. I’ve also been to most U.S. states and several continents. What you’re describing is such an outlier that’s it literally sounds like a diamond in the rough. While there is hopefully a new trend among American planners to make this more of a reality for more Americans in the decades to come, for many years to come not more than a tiny fraction of Americans will experience what you’re enjoying. Until then, the most common American experience will be to hop in a car to do almost anything. And again, in most corners of Texas and the country, I have rarely seen people sitting on their front porches talking to people passing by - that seems to be a relic of stories I’ve read taking place in certain towns in the early 20th century. But I should come check out your area!
I grew up in Houston (ish, Clear Lake). I've lived in Plano, Far North Dallas, now Richardson. I had friends over a large chunk of the South side of Houston. Pearland, Alvin, The Woodlands, Spring, Friendswood, etc. Their experiences weren't too far off, save for the fact there's practically no transit (same for Clear Lake). Visiting friends inside the loop today, I have pretty similar experiences to what I'm talking about. In the end, still lots of free third places around.
And when I visit friends in San Antonio and Austin, I get pretty similar experiences. Neighborhood grill outs. People chilling in the parks. Excellent libraries around.
> the most common American experience will be to hop in a car to do almost anything
The question was, what were those non-profit/free public third spaces that are allegedly missing. I do agree, in many places there's probably a drive to those things, but they do still exist. And from what I experienced, they're busy.
Confinity created its PayPal product in 1999 and Musk's company got merged into Confinity in 2000 because Thiel said they were both working crazy long hours and it would be more beneficial for everyone to join forces into a monopoly instead of compete with one another. Then Musk got kicked out of the company because they didn't think he was doing a good job, and he was fortunate to benefit financially when they sold to eBay. So it's a pretty classic case of survivorship bias, and the fact that he invested into an already innovative electric car company does not mean his taskmaster leanings are assuredly the key to success. For every one of Musk's companies, there are countless others enjoying a healthy amount of profit without the excessive hours.
Keep in mind that while the store brings in a majority of revenue, it provides less than 20% of operating income. A majority of operating income comes from AWS (which provides less than 20% of revenue).
"We" lived in feudalism? Do you speak for the entire world? Remember that there were peoples that were conquered by industrialist empires who had more equal systems than feudalism or than what we have right now. Communities in the Amazon or isolated Pacific or African islands (and deserts in Africa) have had more equal societies than the USA today and arguably were quite happy till their partway-utopia was wrecked by technologically advanced people. This gives me little hope for people pitching AI leading us into a better society unless the hearts of the people with the power are trustworthy and faithful to promoting good for people rather than profit for themselves.
> This gives me little hope for people pitching AI leading us into a better society unless the hearts of the people with the power are trustworthy and faithful to promoting good for people rather than profit for themselves.
Agree. I see parallels to communism: in theory it sounds alright - spread the wealth, everyone works for the collective etc. - but in practise it doesn’t work because people are greedy and leaders inevitably become dictators.
With AI it’s similar in that in theory it could be impartial and level playing fields, but in practise they will be run by companies and governments where the same old human fallibilities persist.
If you can’t trust the leaders then you can’t trust their machines either.
I swore off Square long ago because I made a handle using the names of me and my wife to let people contribute to a honeymoon fund when we got married and then after a couple friends contributed, Cash banned my handle and support wrote me back only one time and then was forever afterward silent and never restored my account, and I thought, "Great, another Silicon Valley app where the goal is to provide as little support as possible, only it's not about photos or email, it's about money, so that seems like the worst fit for Silicon Valley where they don't like to lift a finger to help you with anything!" Ever since I've seen zero reason to use them over a sea of viable alternatives. My stodgy old bank lets me use Zelle, and my stodgy old bank answers the phone when I call. I can also drive a few minutes to talk to them face to face if there is a real problem with my MONEY.
As a Canadian who has worked in the US for a bit, something I always find strange is the American aversion to Zelle. E-transfers are the equivalent here, and everyone uses it and as it's rolled out over the years, I've definitely seen the literal delight from people learning they don't have to download a new app, make a new account, anything else. But every American insisted I make a venmo account, when both of our bank accounts supported Zelle.
As an American, I've never understood it either. I've watched family and friends spend hours setting up Venmo to send each other $20 when both of them already have Zelle built into their banking apps. It makes no sense to me.
reply