Driving the Last Spike

Since the Republican side of the election has devolved into its own phenomena, its time to look at the Democratic side, which has unfortunately started to fragment as well. Like the case with Trump, it is disconcerting to see the energy of many who support Sanders, which can be not only negative, but lead down an unproductive road.  While Clinton is disappointingly not a core liberal, but is effectively right-of-center, Sanders occupies an untenable space on the left.  Sanders' problem is that he is too liberal and not liberal enough at the same time. He wants democratic socialist programs, but would have the costs passed on to those who can't afford them. While his positions are laudable, they are suspended in an idealistic worldview.  Single-payer healthcare and publicly funded higher education are absolutely the goals we should be aiming for, but its unrealistic at this point to put that burden on the entire populace that has already suffered under austerity.  We can't simply shift to a system that exists at point Z, while we are sitting at point A (and we're probably no longer even at A after the 2001-09 economic catastrophe).  A 2% tax increase across the board to cover public healthcare would be a welcome exchange, but Sander's plan raises at least 8.5% on the middle class, who are already drowning from a lack of relief that only exists for the top and bottom classes.  The average taxpayer would see an increase of $4500 in taxes per year (offset somewhat by the elimination of health insurance), which is simply not acceptable or economic advantageous. Sanders would be better off advocating a Universal Basic Income,to stabilize lower incomes and provide across the board sustainability first, followed by funding through elimination of regressive tax policies, the foremost being the home interest deduction [1]. For instance, publicly funded college education is in itself a complex problem. While Europe can sustain a system which  provides a completely tuition-free education, and can additionally pay a living stipend, their entire cultural attitude seems aimed at social reinvestment.  Without question education costs have soared past income increases and have shifted an extreme burden on to those looking to advance, but the current generation in America wants an education that will maximize their earnings without any kind of debt payment, while they expect to be ably to buy a new car straight out of high school without significant work advancement (and yet claim they can't afford to pay $1 to buy a song [2]).  At best, I would suggest a federal loan program which is dismissed upon completion of a degree in other to maximize collective public value, but again it is complex, and an argument for another day.

The only reasonable course I can see is that of Hillary Clinton.  She is the establishment candidate, but I'm not sure why that is a bad thing, as the far right-shift of the Republican party, and its Tea party coup, has shown that the status quo looks pretty good.  Clinton is not a particularly likable person, as many, many people have asserted without hesitation.  I'm quite sure she is a narcissistic pain-in the-ass, but I'm not sure that's a liability given the current relations between President and, well, everybody else given the current adversarial climate (although it is an unfortunate legacy in the Democratic lineage, given the last three Democratic presidents.)  For those who say she is dishonest, I don't really doubt that either.  She is a politician, and if anyone thinks there is a true honest candidate anywhere in the system (even the outsiders) and that everything isn't spin, they are truly deluded.  This is politics, persuading others to follow your point-of-view  It is necessarily ideological and non-objective.  However, I think that Clinton is the one candidate who presents a what-you-see-is-what-you-get choice.  She will have no surprises, and if her policies are anything like her husbands there can be no real complaints.  While his third-way economics was a conservative approach to left-wing democracy, the country did fare well under his leadership and provided a preferable ground in contrast to today's challenges.  Clinton would be a continuation of Obama and similarly would embody some conservative aspects that reach back to Eisenhower, but it would be a far superior position to the radical right-wing approach that has accelerated since the Reagan-era. 

For those that say this isn't enough, that we need real progressivism now, that it's all or nothing, I can only think this is more of the impatient, "right now," immediate reward, generation.  But real politics takes time and takes compromise.  The enthusiastic Sanders' supporters need to realize this (and by the way being a member of Congress for 25 years not only screams "establishment," it provokes the question of why hadn't he attempted to advance these positions through congressional procedure.)  I don't want to be a moderate, but given the limited alternatives, and facing the possibility that a strong push to the left will only empower a more radicalized counter-strike from the right to overcompensate.  Rather we must extend beyond the first step that is the Affordable Healthcare Act and advance toward an affordable single-payer system, while providing economic relief for the lower 80% that has been squeezed over the last 40 years, through extended child-care credits, family leave time, etc. Only once we stabilize the economic conditions can we then move further towards a more European-structured model of education and additional social welfare (and do it better than Europe does.)

[1] This is how other first-world countries do it- you can't have everything, but they prioritize (as any rational person would) healthcare over giving someone a tax break on their weekend or vacation home. 
[2] "Back in my day" CDs were $18, so it took 4.5 hours of work to purchase one, now one can buy a full digital album for $8.99, roughly one hour of work at most places, but puzzlingly, they consider that an unreasonable financial burden. Now, get off my lawn.

The Damage

So here we are again, after two days days of the same tired, old, rhetoric I have to address gun violence again.


I. Psychology & Reality
"Guns don't kill people. People kill people." Nope,  this is misunderstanding of thought and event.  An act requires intent and means.  The actual event which kills a victim is a physical chain: looking back at this chain victim>wound>bullet>gun>shooter.  The kill is done by the bullet fired from the gun (both as designed to perform this purpose). The gun is the means used by the shooter to turn intent into event. So, while the shooter originates the act, it is the gun which transforms it into a physical event with a causal result.  Furthermore, many killings are the result of loaded guns left available for children to find, which they improperly discharged.  There is no intent at all in this event.  It would be stupid to claim that in this case "children kill people." The act is reduced to an event, and it is only the means which come into play, which makes it far more relevant than intent.

Without the means, the event would not occur. Like any piece of technology, the gun transforms the individual into a cybernetic being.  That is, it enhances the capability of the human form.  The mind controls the gun, but the gun enacts the thought.  Without the presence of the weapon, the form capable of exerting this power does not obtain.  Modern NRA-style slogan thinking is contrary to historic thought such as the samurai code, which views the sword as doing the killing, not the warrior.

Those who are arguing to combat ideology rather than activity have it backwards.  Freedom must apply to thought before action.  Rather than restrict thought, which it cannot and should not do, for ethical and political reasons, the law must prevent, to the best of its ability, the realization of thought into malicious action,  There is no sense in allowing evil actions, which have real world consequences, to occur for the sake of freedom, while restricting and controlling thought, which even when it is evil or malicious cannot have a consequential effect on a victim without realization.

II. Laws
"Just because something is illegal doesn't mean someone will stop doing it."  Agreed, but this is a misunderstanding of law.  Laws are not designed to make an individual pre-examine their actions, reflect, and then decide what is in their best interest - at least in immediate situations of violence, desperate acts, or willful disregard for social good. A common psychological property of the criminally-minded is the lack of understanding between cause and effect. So, laws are in no way going to help them make immediate decisions.  But, legislation does have an effect on the physical reality which provides the conditions for the act to emerge.  In this case, the law can hinder the proliferation of guns which get into the hands of the shooter, and limit his ability to carry out the malicious act. The law deals with the physical reality, the objective, not the mental, which is an isolated subjective.

"Banning doesn't matter, people will get them anyway." Then why should we make anything illegal?  There are all kinds of laws limiting personal arms.  Fully automatic weapons, explosives, etc are strictly regulated and not easily available even in black markets.  There is clearly a divide between what we would call military grade weapons and personal arms.  Within the fuzzy middle space, the exact position of the line seems too inclusive. It is easy to put hunting rifles and many classes of handgun for personal protection on one side, and F-16s and AH-64 Apaches on the other side (even though I would like to personally own these, military grade equipment is not defensible as personal arms, existing without being subjected to a large chain of oversight).  In the middle, resides arms like the AR-15.  Historically considered personal and constitutionally legal because of its semi-automatic nature, I think this class of weapons has been inappropriately categorized on the wrong side of the line.  Classifying arms as personal or military along an automatic/semi-automatic divide is misguided.  The argument revolving around "Assault rifles" is claimed to be an aesthetic one by gun advocates.  Apparently gun enthusiasts who shoot what they consider to be basic rifles like to make their guns look like "assault weapons"  Why? To play soldier?  This isn't an innocent game, and not the world of make-believe.  But, I agree that we should not be legislating arms based on what they look like.  Why are we not discussing muzzle velocity, firing rate, magazine capacity, etc?  These are the factors that increase lethality.  And it is lethality that should determine the class of weapon.  The M-16, the standard of the US military for decades, has similar parameters and uses semi-automatic and three-round burst modes, which have been concluded to be of more accurate use.  A weapon with automatic mode does not make it an appreciably different type of weapon. With something that can fire 13 rounds per second, the technical aspects of the firing pin are irrelevant, the result of of the weapon as it is are very deadly.  I would like to hear from veterans, who used their gun as their most significant tool in doing their job, in regards to why that tool, which needs to be as lethal and effective as it can be, is something that needs to exist in civilian life? I would think that of anyone, a soldier would best understand the difference between combat and civilized life, and why such arms should only reside in the hands of highly trained professionals.

I concede that violent events can never be pre-neutralized, but the point of living within the safety of civilization is that the laws will reduce the range of possible events, and eliminate the likelihood of the most egregious ones.  Someone can always inflict harm with a screwdriver (maybe), or a knife.  But using a melee weapon limits the damage, maybe one or two kills are possible with several wounded.  Homemade explosive devices and handguns slightly more.  Comparing the Boston Bombing: two bombs only yielded three deaths.  When we get to high-lethality rifles, then we start looking at much higher death tolls, and this is the point where we must address public safety. It does not have to be an all-or-nothing result, but rather eliminate the arms which produces the most public threat but produces the least social good, without hindering the activities of hunting and reasonable self-defense engaged in by qualified citizens. [1]

III: Rights
In the conflict of rights, we must give priority to the actual before the potential found only in hypotheticals.  Why should one’s right to be safe from an actual threat be callously and negligently ignored in favor of the rights of someone else who might one day need to exercise their own rights to avoid threat?  What is immediate and active must be considered first without being subjugated to the passive world of speculation.  The toll of the lives that will be lost in events in the near future can be mitigated rather than ignored in favor of someone's future attempt at self-defense, which can be prepared through other means.  The right to life far exceeds the secondary additions to the constitution which produces a public threat, a threat to that most basic right.

_________________________________________________________________________________

The events of Orlando have reminded me of these Marillion lyrics, which mostly pertain to the Cold War, but still have significance and resonate about the loss resulting from the conflict with those who emanate an adverse ideology filled with anger and hate, and externalize that internal lack through violence and nihilistic destructive impulses:

And we wake up without you
We wake up without you
With a hole in our hearts

You mad dog shaven head bottle-boy freaks
In Martens and khaki, drunk on sake
You stare at yourself in the cruel flush of dawn
Terrified, sunken eyed, withered and drawn
The butcher, the baker, the munitions maker
The over-achiever, the armistice breaker
The freebase instructor, the lightning conductor
The psycho, the sailor, the tanker, the tailor
The black market mailer
The quick and the dead
The spotlight dancer
The quick and the dead
We wake up without you
With a hole in our hearts

-Marillion “Berlin” 1989

[1] It's very clear that individuals can be denied constitutional rights.  Felons, drug addicts, mental disabled people are all excluded.  I don't see why stronger psychological testing of gun purchasers, and a stricter mental requirement, would be any different legally