Chewing the Cud (Posts about Philosophical)

The Argument For Guns

James Aimonetti — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:38:34 GMT

I am not a gun-toting fellow by any means. Typically I have waffled between whether to ban some guns or leave them all available to private citizens. I know it is a slippery slope when talking bans and I don't trust future legislators to not take advantage of a current legislator's good intentions in limiting a subsection of firearms. That said, I think it is always good to refresh your position with a well-articulated essay in support of your thoughts. And while I probably will not be toting any machine guns or bazookas, I think a handgun and some training might be time and money well spent. We'll see. Until then, here's the post that I feel articulates a good reason for the 2nd Amendment to be un-abridged by any gun laws:

The Gun is Civilization Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret) Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some. When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender. There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly. Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable. When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

Good government?

James Aimonetti — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:48:17 GMT

Sometime in the past, perhaps a month ago, I was involved in a discussion of what, if anything, the government did that was beneficial for the common man and was not an explicitly delegated power derived from the Constitution. Then today, there was a discussion on reddit concerning that very question, and I found the comments to be enlightening. The parent-est thread of the conversation can be found here. First, the challenge was made to name government services that make government a "dangerous good" rather than a "necessary evil". The list initially created included:

Rural electrification/Tennessee Valley Authority

DARPA (the Internet?)

NASA

The National Weather Service

US Geological Survey

Pell grants

Those are some pretty solid programs, eh? And yet…

Rural electrification/Tennessee Valley Authority Lots of rural ares are not under TVA or other rural electrification plans. My Grandpa remembered his dad paying $700 (in 1930's money) to a nearby utility to run power to their farm. Of course the farm was just outside of Minneapolis so there was a utility to pay. For that matter my house has power from a co-op formed because a bunch of farmers decided they wanted power and made it happen.

DARPA (the Internet?) There were other private networks. Remember fidonet? Any could have grown. Of course the government being behind DARPA with big money was a large factor, but something would have happened. Science fiction has been full of stories that assume a world (universe) wide network.

NASA The only one here that you can make any claim at all about doing something that we wouldn't have without them today. At what cost though? If we had spent the money NASA has got over the years on genetic research we could have dragons instead. Nobody has been to the moon in my lifetime (and I'm 34), at least with dragons I could go to the circus and see them.

The National Weather Service Most TV and radio stations already have their own weathermen. Without the NWS they might actually have to know something about weather, instead of looking good. Considering the "weathermen" in my area this would be an improvement

US Geological Survey There are lots of private maps.

Pell grants There are plenty of private scolarships.

Government has done some neat things. However most would have happened anyway. All come at the cost of some other neat thing.

Education vs Schooling

James Aimonetti — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:01:20 GMT

It is hard to question the value of public schools. The premise, a free education to enable children to lift themselves up and be productive members of society, is certainly hard to argue against. And yet, we see public schools failing, some quite miserably, to produce competent young adults. Solutions proposed, like "No Child Left Behind" are equally hard to argue against. How can a politician vote against such a proposition? And yet we have seen a good deal of backlash from teachers and administrators as to the decrease in quality learning that students have received. Despite all the "work" put into public education, public schools are not producing the intellectual citizens hoped for and desired. So we need to question deeper. I was given an article today that takes a deeper look at public education and provides some refreshing insight. The author, John Taylor Gatto, questions the premises of public education and finds that, not only are they ineffective, but designed to be so. Read with an open mind and see if the content jives with you. At the very least, we need to examine so many of the governmental institutions put in place in the last century that we take as necessary, and public education is certainly one of those institutions that will generally be disregarded in that discussion. The Federal Reserve, the IRS, Homeland Security, and more are easier targets because they have a negative impact on our society. Public education is generally perceived as a net positive for society, and thus tends to be exempt from discussion on its needed existence.

Important Ideas

James Aimonetti — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 09:59:47 GMT

You cannot help the poor, by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak, by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity, by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up, by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man, by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage, by taking away people's initiative and independence.
You cannot help people permanently, by doing for them what they could and should, do for themselves.

To whom are these attributed to? None other than Abraham Lincoln. Sad that after all these years, our politicians haven't learned these lessons, and our citizenry hasn't elected politicians that do get it.

Private Philanthropy

James Aimonetti — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:54:52 GMT

So many government-sponsored social welfare programs are touted as helping the poorer and more disadvantaged in society. While noble in intent, history shows that these programs are at best inefficient. With so much bureaucracy inherent in government doings, these programs are at a disadvantage from the start. So why do they persist? I think mostly because politicians refuse to take a stand on issues. Who wants to vote against welfare? You are immediately pegged as "elitist", uncaring, out of touch with most of Americans. The fact is, the government cannot effectively deal with this social issues, and should not for that very reason. Some would even argue that most of the social welfare programs are un-Constitutional. Indeed, these programs are paid for by forcibly taking money from hard-working citizens and redistributing it according to what the government deems appropriate. A problem with this approach is that a disproportionate amount of the funds go to a small segment of society. Why is my labor paying for a family in another state to live on welfare for years at a time? Why am I forced to make this payment? Who doesn't resent being told to do something, especially if they don't agree with it? And yet, we must comply, otherwise the IRS thugs will take your money by force. How is it moral to force someone to pay for something they don't support, and if they refuse, to take drastic actions to ensure they pay? Indeed, it is an encroachment on personal liberty. How much more fulfilling is it to help out of the goodness of your heart? My volunteer experiences have all been positive and encourage me to continue my efforts. What if it was compulsory? I would probably not expend the effort I do when it's my choice. When it comes to what to do with my money, I'm even more bothered by forced support. That is why reading stories about private businesses and people reaching out into their communities, where they can see a direct effect, are so important to know about and support. That should be government's roll in welfare. Make it easy for people to support their local communities. Incentive it. Don't force it. I firmly believe we have a responsibility to help our fellow man. I do not believe we should be forced by any authority other than our own to do so.

Programming Epigrams

James Aimonetti — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 11:11:15 GMT

First, to catch some up, a definition: epigram: n.

A short, witty poem expressing a single thought or observation.
A concise, clever, often paradoxical statement.

From a list of programming epigrams, I liked these two a lot: 35. Everyone can be taught to sculpt: Michelangelo would have had to be taught not to. So it is with great programmers. 116. You think you know when you can learn, are more sure when you can write, even more when you can teach, but certain when you can program.

The Artist in Me

James Aimonetti — Mon, 06 Feb 2006 01:35:12 GMT

Perhaps a case can be made for the existence of artistic talent in me…read on for why writing code is awesome!

I Knew I Was On To Something

James Aimonetti — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 00:33:27 GMT

One of my football buddies always used to say, "Don't let school get in the way of college." Most laughed and knew he meant slacking off was the cool thing to do. I took it as meaning there is more to college than simply doing homework and papers. While this does not mean to neglect your studies, it does mean to not neglect the other facets of the college experience. Developing the whole man is more important than getting a 4.0 GPA. What does spending an extra hour reading an english book more thoroughly do for you ten years from now? Not much. How about starting your own company from school? Man, that would be sweet. So your GPA won't rest at 4.0; perhaps is lowers even to a 3.0. Who would be the more valuable hire after graduation, the reader or the founder? Paul Graham asked just this question to some fairly important people:

I asked managers at Yahoo, Google, Amazon, Cisco and Microsoft how they'd feel about two candidates, both 24, with equal ability, one who'd tried to start a startup that tanked, and another who'd spent the two years since college working as a developer at a big company. Every one responded that they'd prefer the guy who'd tried to start his own company. Zod Nazem, who's in charge of engineering at Yahoo, said: I actually put more value on the guy with the failed startup. And you can quote me! So there you have it. Want to get hired by Yahoo? Start your own company.

College is much more than high school 2.0. It's about discovering yourself, who you are, what you stand for, where you want to go, and not to take 'safe' classes that will look good when you apply for your first job. Here's the kicker: after your first job, no one really cares about your grades - they care about your production, what you've done. So do well in school, because smart people don't get 2.0 GPAs, but don't lose sight of the fact that a 4.0 won't get you a better job in 5 years. Having tangibles will…

There Is No Spoon

James Aimonetti — Tue, 03 Jan 2006 23:58:10 GMT

Fascinating article I've been reading for the last hour or so over at edge.org. The goal of the article was to ask many influential intelligent people what their most dangerous idea is today. The results are…interesting. One in particular that I want to mention here is by Donald Hoffman, a cognitive scientist at UC, Irvine and author of the book 'Visual Intelligence'.

Once one abandons public physical objects, one must reformulate many current open problems in science. One example is the mind-brain relation. There are no public brains, only my brain experiences and your brain experiences. These brain experiences are just the simplified visual experiences of homo sapiens, shaped for survival in certain niches. The chances that our brain experiences resemble some mind-independent truth are remote at best, and those who would claim otherwise must surely explain the miracle. Failing a clever explanation of this miracle, there is no reason to believe brains cause anything, including minds. And here the wolf unzips the sheep skin, and darts out into the open.

Scandolous! And yet interesting. Anyhoot, b-ball restarts tomorrow - go Panthers, huh?!?

Oh so true

James Aimonetti — Wed, 28 Sep 2005 10:20:26 GMT

From the awesome mind of Anonymous: O Lord, grant that we may always be right, for Thou knowest we will never change our minds.