Yet Another School Shooting: Gun Rights Advocates Share Blame For Permissive Gun Culture

About once a week mass shootings have been occurring across the country, but only our country because every other developed nation on the planet has solved this issue limiting access to firearms. The gun rights advocates claim some sort twisted divine right to always be able to be violent and have efficient implements to do so. I characterize it as 'twisted' because why would G-d grant a right to destroy G-d's own creation to  G-d's individual's creation?

There is no theological internal logic to a right to implements of pure intrinsic violence, if we are to hold that our shared creator is benevolent and good. Yet we have so called "Christian" churches handing out guns for first time attendees, the same people claim that teachings of Jesus Christ are the only way to salvation which is includes "those who live by the sword die by the sword" believe that eternal life is living by the gun. The only solution for this cultural abomination is that of a drastic cultural change that will no longer tolerate implements that can exclusively be used for violent purposes.

The people of faith claiming allegiance to Jesus of Nazareth, should be the source of this societal transformation but I will not hold my breath for this logical awakening.

Law Abiding Rancher? Or Criminal Trespasser?

Dave Bundy , son of rancher, shown kicking law enforcement canines

This week the Federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) repossessed 900 head of cattle over a dispute regarding grazing rights. Back in 1993, BLM and the Bundy Ranch to continue grazing as long as the ranch remained less than 250 head of cattle and a restricted 150 acres land while paying federal grazing fees. The Bundy Ranch agree to the compromise and then almost immediately ignored it growing the herd and grazing range past the agreed upon limits, while refusing to pay the grazing fees. Clive Bundy, the owner of the Bundy Ranch, claims that the ranch had been grazing on the open range since the 19th century and therefore is his right to continue to use the land without limit since the Ranch predates the BLM. Then where is Bundy's title to the land? Claiming that he has unlimited grazing rights to public (ie government owned land) lands just because he always has had that right. Based upon that logic Native Americans would really like their continent back, and is unlikely that the Bundy Ranch will revert back to the tribes that lived there in the pre-Colombian era. Mr. Bundy is even quoting acknowledging that federal agency is usurping state rights when regarding to the Federal Government owned land:

“I’m a producer,” Cliven said. “I produce edible commodity from the desert forage, and all of these things are governed under state law. So, in other words, this type of government has eliminated all of our state law, eliminated our state sovereignty, and has took control over our public lands and even took control over our Clark County sheriff. They’ve taken the whole county over. The whole state, almost.”

How dare the Federal Government tell him whether or not his cattle can trespass on Federal owned land?!?
Sarcasm aside, the militia movement and other right-wingers have come to support this self-entitled interloper but mostly just to spit in face of the Federal Government (which they have a right to do) but pragmatically speaking how do they transition to their ideal of no or very limited government while still maintaining property rights? The government owned lands, that had been being utilized by the Native Americans for a millennia though without the Western styled property rights, the title of those lands came into existence only from federal government action not ranchers declaring it be. Government activity (whether US Federal government or Royal Spanish forces) forced onto the land the Western concept of private property, reserving vast lands of the Western states to remain under the stewardship of the Federal Government whether the individual rancher that buys a fraction of land necessary to maintain a herd sized to their desire. How ever many acres the Bundy Ranch actually owns should be the limitation of how large the herd is, and his whining over not being able to trespass as he has always done is simply a thief demanding he is entitled access to someone else's land.

So Federal Government that made the concerted effort to attain these lands should just be handed over to private owners without payment? The Bundy Ranch should get title and deed  because they need it and the government has it? "From those with abilities to those of need", is absolutely evil according to the right-wingers except when those with abilities happens to be of the Federal Government. Individual rights seem to be doled by right-wingers entirely based on race, imagine an African-American disputing with the government over a million dollars (only $300,000 had the Bundy Ranch paid the grazing fees and kept the herd within restrictions agreed upon in 1993), would the militia movement come to their aid or would they simply characterize as welfare-queens with a million dollars of ill-gotten goods? Mitt Rommney, Paul Ryan, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Bachman, et al have been bashing government programs such as Medicaid, SNAP, Section 8, Headstart, and any other program that benefits the least among us as being freebies given away as a means to get their votes; when a white man gets a million dollars of government benefits and expected to pay for those benefits there is nothing but incredulity "The Federal Government has overreached, demanding that this law-abiding* citizen can't let his over-sized herd graze on public (ie Federally owned) land!"

Even if the government was overreaching when trying to wrest control back of their land from a rancher that had gotten used to using someone else's land (or at least not his own land if you want to consider government land to be owned by the public), where the land his herd was trespassing on was privately held land would it have been overreaching after 20 years of the herd trampling the rights of the private landowner for that private landowner to take the herd as his own? If the title owner of land kept having to deal with a herd of cattle from down the road grazing on his land, the title owner has the right to the herd after the rancher welshes on paying for the access to landowner's land for 20 years straight. To assume the opposite ignores a right to property just because the entity that owns the land is the Federal government, moral relativism at it's worst.

But libertarians are adamant to never acknowledge the practical existence of the government, they believe in the Pollyanna-ish view of the world that there is a magic wand where government will no longer exist and never consider how to pragmatically transition  to that ideal. Federal government activity was essential to existence of property rights being imposed on the Western states before the wagoners made their way to those states, just to remind you that Lewis and Clark were hired by the Federal Government while the contemporaneously the American hinterlands were modern day Tennessee. So to claim that one doesn't need the government now, also needs to accept the benefits and assets that have been accumulated by the government prior to the epiphany that the government should be disbanded. Libertarians need to come up with a path to transition from our current status of "overreaching" government to disbanding of that government with all the property dispersed in a fair and equal manner-- you know if they actually believed in fairness and equality.

Re: Free Birth Control and Unfree Photographers

 

So everyone has a right to the market when they open a business, and a right to withhold services and resources based upon nothing more than spite? That is an opinion that could only be held by individuals who have the privilege of being a member of the dominant class. Acceptability of excluding all those that do not meet the majority's expectation is a sign of irrationality; and Jacob Sullum is free to proselytize the right to refuse your fellow Americans without a viable reason, but to appear on a venue such as Reason.com is abundant with irony.

The individual has a right not to offer consumer services to the general public, but once you take the endeavour to provide those consumer services the only way that it encroaches on the business owners right is when the owner choses to profess the withholding of services are based upon the demographic group that the consumer belongs to. The action, overt by the choice of the business owner, to choose to withhold while offending the perspective customer is impractical and unnecessary since the business owner could have simply stated “sorry, we aren't available that week, could I refer you to so-and-so they would be able to help you out.” Most of the readers of Reason.com will likely agree with the sentiment that Title II of the Civil Rights Act which bars discrimination within businesses that are available to the public is utterly irrational, but the social contract that provides government services to businesses implies that the businesses should be for the public that paid for the infrastructure the businesses utilize on a daily basis. Would it acceptable if businesses that did discriminate, that the local government would roll back the roads that lead to the business? To discriminate against counter parties that did business with the discriminating owner? If there is a right to discriminate then any business exercising that right would have a lot more to lose than just one gig for a betrothed couple that the business owner despised. You have a right not to participate in any market, but once you choose to enter said market it is no longer your right to discriminate; and once you do choose to infringe on the rights of individuals for simple practicality find any other excuse to withhold services or goods and return to under whatever bridge you come from. Every market relies upon public goods, and deny that fact is irrational and unreasonable.

In regards to Hobby Lobby, they are receiving tax credits (which they free are to reject) when they provide their employees with health-care insurance that happens to include birth control. If they were so adamant they would refuse the tax credits and pay for health insurance that did not include birth control (which would be difficult to find since birth control has such a great epidemiological benefit that any insurance company denying birth control would see their expenditures go up and so the market and reason has spoken and few health insurance policies are offered sans birth control at reasonable rates) as well as the difference in costs that are being set by the for-profit insurance companies. Hobby Lobby, while paying lip service to their right to principle, would rather bemoan their inability to access government services and benefits on their own terms. But when your cant stick to stated principles because inconvenience, and you would rather have them subsidized than pay the true costs of those principles they are no longer principles but just a hobby.

Collaboration Versus Competition

Throughout history the extremes can be seen between the drastic difference between collaborators and competitors; Stalin-ism being the hyperbolic version of collaborators needing brute force to get to get tragic results--Fascism at the other extreme needs the same excess of force as well just to maintain "competitive" advantage of the regime. The difference can also be demonstrated through the prism of education as both being successful in their own way, Korean primary education system heralds competitiveness for all their children while Finland's schools are buttressed by collaboration so much that it bans private schools altogether.

At heart of the difference between these worldviews, is the holder's priority of 'others' vs. 'self'. Those that internalize collaboration to lead their lives seek to put others above themselves, while competitors believe themselves to be superior (whether or not facts bear that out) and is of the most ultimate concern when making decisions. So when individuals hold the belief that there is a end of civilization in the very near future (ex. Alex Jones), they do so with a sense of schadenfreude from preparing for an apocalypse that would devastate those that will be left starving and in a barbaric state of a nature. The hyperbolic individualists that without irony will brag that they never need anyone else (à la Craig T. Nelson’s claim “When I was on welfare, nobody helped me.”

Collaborators on the other hand seek out to improve their lives along with as many others as possible. Though err on the side of over-intervention and unrequested involvement, collaboration has the hubris of taking joy of helping--not whether or not the target of the help wanted the help are actual benefits from the assistance, but self-righteousness and smugness from completing a task no one asked for.

In the paradigm of government and public policy, the competition worldview believe that less government the better with expectations that private market will provide a general benevolence both domestically and abroad. They will point out that America’s drift towards empire is due to a “statist” government not giving way to the liberty of the individual. As Rand Paul arguing that Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that bans private businesses to discriminate based on race was  unnecessary since it was simply ‘bad business’ to exclude a large segment of the customer base. It ignores that the individual that is on top of the heap tends to far less than benevolent towards everyone below and needs to be restricted to maintain a common well being. It also ignores the reality that the foreign policy that are criticized for being excessive and militaristic were all done at the behest of private businesses.

Collaboration has its excesses as well, mired in consensus building tends to lead collaborators to inaction or action that is far from effective. United Nations is an example of excesses of collaboration, to a paralysis through analysis, while American actions done in name of humanity concerns is just lip service and actually done for the benefit of corporate profit motives.

So in my humble opinion, their needs to be a moderation between these two views (a leaning towards more collaborative than competition) and neither proponents should hold to a purist view of either side.