So I digress... sort-of...
I had a discussion on Facebook over the last 2-3 days dealing with gun control, and interestingly enough, it shed some light on topic of socialism, capitalism, and the economic expectations of Americans when it comes to politics.
So how did a discussion about gun control shift to economics?
Well first let me briefly state the nature of the argument. My position on the issue is that owning guns is a fundamental right, but one that must, like all rights, be balanced against society's overall interest in safety and maintaining order. To this degree, I am in favor of gun control that limits ownership of certain kinds of firearms to the military or police forces, and I am in favor of reasonable laws that measure the judgment and fitness of a gun owner before they are allowed to purchase one. I am aware that our attempts to create laws to do both have been less than perfect, but I think the bottom line is that we need to try to keep guns from those too stupid, careless, or emotionally unstable to be trusted with them and I think that things like machine guns and assault rifles have no business in civilian homes and neighborhoods. If you need more than a pistol for home defense, you're not defending your home, you're arming for something and it's probably best left to the police.
My opponent was a classic individualist. He believes that the laws should impose consequences on firearm owners for improper or illegal use of those firearms, but believes that gun ownership should not be restricted in any way whether the gun in question is a pistol, a rifle, a machine gun, or other military hardware.
The discussion turned on whether or not society has a right to impose preventative laws to restrict the freedom of an individual to purchase and own dangerous equipment. My insistence that society has such an interest, created this response:
"We are not a country of "consensus"... we are a country of individuals, and a violation of the rights and abilities of an individual is a tyranny of the masses. Additionally, if you read all the papers you claim to have you would understand that there was language to support a local police, specific local militia, and so on... but that the language was changed and modified to include private individuals. Ownership of weaponry was not a concern because local laws would deal. This was also true of the First Amendment, language within the fifth and sixth amendments, and on. The primary concern was the protection of INDIVIDUAL rights, because that would be the best way to prevent a tyranny of the masses and a tyranny of a government BY the People (as you mentioned).
A consensus of the people is called Communism... that was not what our founders wanted, and they spoke often about the threat of taking "Democracy" to such extents without protecting the rights of Minority opposition. "
I do want Industrial safety standards to just fine the companies that harm their workers, I do want to remove MANDATORY safety features, and I do believe that the excuse "For your own good" is a great prelude to tyranny. "
The fundamental difference between us is now laid bare. To him, individual freedom is so important that any foreseeable consequence is not to be prevented but instead punished after the fact and the individual held accountable. So if my neighbor purchases a machine gun and accidentally sets it off killing a family in another house, he should be prosecuted and imprisoned, but the fact that the danger of an untrained person using machine gun in a civilian environment was predictable is immaterial. Nothing should be done to restrict machine gun ownership.
Now my point here is not to continue the argument I had there, but rather to point out the spark - the genesis point of where much of our decisiveness lies on the issues of politics.
Where does the balance lie between the rights of the individual and the needs of society?
Obama is called Socialist and liberals are regularly called communists or Marxists because we tend to believe that individual rights must exist within a framework of social responsibility. That society is a great compromise where a portion of our work needs to be a collective effort to support the whole.
Conservatives see it differently. Conservatives tend to see society as a byproduct of individual intelligence, determination, and ingenuity. Conservatives believe, that left to their own devices, individuals will soar upwards towards prosperity and will bring others with them as a result of their own success. Anything that requires the individual to do something they otherwise would not, or give up something they earn, is direct interference in prosperity - for everyone.
So there you have it. There is a fundamental difference in the premise between the two schools of thought.
A liberal begins with the premise that society is something that requires construction and maintenance. That the vine of American economics and national welfare will suffer and choke itself if left to its own devices. It is an American's obligation to seek to build the right framework from which the rest of all things good and free can thrive much like a fence being built for a vine to climb. So liberals want to discuss how to make the best lattice so the vine can reach the highest possible point and thrive.
A conservative believes any effort to build the fence is telling the vine where to go and how to grow. The conservative believes that the investment should never be in anything other than the vine itself and that it will make it's best way and become strongest without any more direction than comes from the power of the plant itself. The government should be simply protecting the space the vine needs to grow in from outside encroachment and should certainly not BE a force that encroaches.
So what's my point with all this.
We cannot argue people from one premise to another. What makes us believe first in the individual or first in the social is a word view that evolves over time from our personal experience. Politicians would have us demonize the other side - whichever other side that is - but in truth both sides have American's best interest at heart.
What progressive liberals and conservatives need to do is take the next step. That step is accepting the opposing core premise, and instead of battling futilely against it, to accept that premise and seek to find common ground where both sides can achieve satisfactory, if not ideal, results.
So going back to gun control, perhaps I need to accept that restrictions on ownership of firearms needs to be further towards freedom than I might prefer as a liberal in order to find ground with those who see individual freedom as paramount to being American. Fighting against whether individualism is right or wrong is futile - it is the conservative world view and it isn't going away. I need to seek a way to work with those with conservative values, not argue that they shouldn't be conservative. Perhaps they, on the other hand, need to accept ownership limitations on weapons whose ability to do catastrophic accidental or intentional damage far exceeds the interest of a person's freedom to own one. They might see it as some encroachment, but they need to stop battling the fact that I see social development as a priority. They can't argue that out of me.
In the end, if we are reduced to fighting over our core values - the things we consider True with a capital T, then there is no convincing the other side. You will not give up who you are. The only winners in such a fight are the politicians. The way they win is to take advantage of voter apathy or to sensationalize an issue and attempt to get more of us or less of us to the polls without EVER generating agreement, consensus, or compromise.
This whole blog is about reclaiming the power of dialogue regardless of your political leaning and learning to talk to the other side. So perhaps we start here. Liberals are not socialists. Conservatives are not selfish. Both have something to say and the debate should be about finding acceptable middle ground whether it's gun control, economic policy, or national security.
Have we lost the ability to get past the fact that others don't think like we do?
I hope not.
I had a discussion on Facebook over the last 2-3 days dealing with gun control, and interestingly enough, it shed some light on topic of socialism, capitalism, and the economic expectations of Americans when it comes to politics.
So how did a discussion about gun control shift to economics?
Well first let me briefly state the nature of the argument. My position on the issue is that owning guns is a fundamental right, but one that must, like all rights, be balanced against society's overall interest in safety and maintaining order. To this degree, I am in favor of gun control that limits ownership of certain kinds of firearms to the military or police forces, and I am in favor of reasonable laws that measure the judgment and fitness of a gun owner before they are allowed to purchase one. I am aware that our attempts to create laws to do both have been less than perfect, but I think the bottom line is that we need to try to keep guns from those too stupid, careless, or emotionally unstable to be trusted with them and I think that things like machine guns and assault rifles have no business in civilian homes and neighborhoods. If you need more than a pistol for home defense, you're not defending your home, you're arming for something and it's probably best left to the police.
My opponent was a classic individualist. He believes that the laws should impose consequences on firearm owners for improper or illegal use of those firearms, but believes that gun ownership should not be restricted in any way whether the gun in question is a pistol, a rifle, a machine gun, or other military hardware.
The discussion turned on whether or not society has a right to impose preventative laws to restrict the freedom of an individual to purchase and own dangerous equipment. My insistence that society has such an interest, created this response:
"We are not a country of "consensus"... we are a country of individuals, and a violation of the rights and abilities of an individual is a tyranny of the masses. Additionally, if you read all the papers you claim to have you would understand that there was language to support a local police, specific local militia, and so on... but that the language was changed and modified to include private individuals. Ownership of weaponry was not a concern because local laws would deal. This was also true of the First Amendment, language within the fifth and sixth amendments, and on. The primary concern was the protection of INDIVIDUAL rights, because that would be the best way to prevent a tyranny of the masses and a tyranny of a government BY the People (as you mentioned).
A consensus of the people is called Communism... that was not what our founders wanted, and they spoke often about the threat of taking "Democracy" to such extents without protecting the rights of Minority opposition. "
I do want Industrial safety standards to just fine the companies that harm their workers, I do want to remove MANDATORY safety features, and I do believe that the excuse "For your own good" is a great prelude to tyranny. "
The fundamental difference between us is now laid bare. To him, individual freedom is so important that any foreseeable consequence is not to be prevented but instead punished after the fact and the individual held accountable. So if my neighbor purchases a machine gun and accidentally sets it off killing a family in another house, he should be prosecuted and imprisoned, but the fact that the danger of an untrained person using machine gun in a civilian environment was predictable is immaterial. Nothing should be done to restrict machine gun ownership.
Now my point here is not to continue the argument I had there, but rather to point out the spark - the genesis point of where much of our decisiveness lies on the issues of politics.
Where does the balance lie between the rights of the individual and the needs of society?
Obama is called Socialist and liberals are regularly called communists or Marxists because we tend to believe that individual rights must exist within a framework of social responsibility. That society is a great compromise where a portion of our work needs to be a collective effort to support the whole.
Conservatives see it differently. Conservatives tend to see society as a byproduct of individual intelligence, determination, and ingenuity. Conservatives believe, that left to their own devices, individuals will soar upwards towards prosperity and will bring others with them as a result of their own success. Anything that requires the individual to do something they otherwise would not, or give up something they earn, is direct interference in prosperity - for everyone.
So there you have it. There is a fundamental difference in the premise between the two schools of thought.
A liberal begins with the premise that society is something that requires construction and maintenance. That the vine of American economics and national welfare will suffer and choke itself if left to its own devices. It is an American's obligation to seek to build the right framework from which the rest of all things good and free can thrive much like a fence being built for a vine to climb. So liberals want to discuss how to make the best lattice so the vine can reach the highest possible point and thrive.
A conservative believes any effort to build the fence is telling the vine where to go and how to grow. The conservative believes that the investment should never be in anything other than the vine itself and that it will make it's best way and become strongest without any more direction than comes from the power of the plant itself. The government should be simply protecting the space the vine needs to grow in from outside encroachment and should certainly not BE a force that encroaches.
So what's my point with all this.
We cannot argue people from one premise to another. What makes us believe first in the individual or first in the social is a word view that evolves over time from our personal experience. Politicians would have us demonize the other side - whichever other side that is - but in truth both sides have American's best interest at heart.
What progressive liberals and conservatives need to do is take the next step. That step is accepting the opposing core premise, and instead of battling futilely against it, to accept that premise and seek to find common ground where both sides can achieve satisfactory, if not ideal, results.
So going back to gun control, perhaps I need to accept that restrictions on ownership of firearms needs to be further towards freedom than I might prefer as a liberal in order to find ground with those who see individual freedom as paramount to being American. Fighting against whether individualism is right or wrong is futile - it is the conservative world view and it isn't going away. I need to seek a way to work with those with conservative values, not argue that they shouldn't be conservative. Perhaps they, on the other hand, need to accept ownership limitations on weapons whose ability to do catastrophic accidental or intentional damage far exceeds the interest of a person's freedom to own one. They might see it as some encroachment, but they need to stop battling the fact that I see social development as a priority. They can't argue that out of me.
In the end, if we are reduced to fighting over our core values - the things we consider True with a capital T, then there is no convincing the other side. You will not give up who you are. The only winners in such a fight are the politicians. The way they win is to take advantage of voter apathy or to sensationalize an issue and attempt to get more of us or less of us to the polls without EVER generating agreement, consensus, or compromise.
This whole blog is about reclaiming the power of dialogue regardless of your political leaning and learning to talk to the other side. So perhaps we start here. Liberals are not socialists. Conservatives are not selfish. Both have something to say and the debate should be about finding acceptable middle ground whether it's gun control, economic policy, or national security.
Have we lost the ability to get past the fact that others don't think like we do?
I hope not.
Comments
Post a Comment