Political Software

I’m on a continuing quest to get as far away from Microsoft products as possible. Since I don’t fiddle around with i-Anythings and my telephone is a cuss-worthy box o’parts, getting away from the corporate octopus isn’t easy. Much of the world is managing, however, so there’s hope for humanity.

What I have been able to do is find good, lightweight, and functional programs that do exactly what I need them to do without arguing about it. When I want to defragment my hard-drive in a hurry, MyDefrag does the job. I do most of my writing on OpenOffice software. When Windows Media Player balked at playing what I wanted to watch, I got this.

But the title of this article promised politics, and I’m about to deliver. I look at government programs in a way similar to my take on computers. We citizens don’t exist to serve government. Government exists to work for us.

My favorite example of good government is NASA. Said agency has never had even five percent of the Federal budget, but look at all that it has achieved. And it has done this without preventing others from operating in space. Look at SpaceX and Virgin Galactic for examples. The former of those is now delivering cargo to the International Space Station.

Take in contrast the Microsoft-esque attempt at healthcare reform. That massive piece of political software is being rolled out over a period of years. The beta testing has so far given mixed results. And soon, lots of Americans are going to face the bureaucratic equivalent of a pop-up that asks, Are you sure?

I have no objection to government being helpful. But that help should be genuine. It should be effective. And most importantly, it should come with no compulsion.

What I’d like to see, for example, would be a government insurance program such as what I discussed here–in other words, a lightweight program that does only what it claims to do and does that well and without argument.

The problem is that political software developers so often are afflicted with big visions while at the same time lacking in the quality that the best engineers are blessed with–a love of simplicity. Politicians so often operate under the fear that the voters are coming, so they’d better look busy. Many of them have a heartfelt desire to do good and confuse the nature of their desires with the nature of their ideas.

The principle that I’m suggesting here is that when considering the creation or expansion of a government program, we must ask what is the smallest number of actions that will accomplish a worthy goal.

God, guns, and gays

I’ve written many times before on the question of gun rights and gay rights. Sometimes, I’ve even put the two together. Today, since both subjects are drawing the attention of America, I’m joining them to show the common thread.

As I’ve said many times, if you’re not hurting me (or an innocent person), do as you will. The Wiccans use that saying as the basis of their ethics, and it’s a good summary of the libertarian philosophy. It is also at the heart of the American way of doing things.

At the same time, Americans have a Puritan strain running through our collective consciousness. Recall H. L. Mencken’s line about Puritanism–the haunting belief that somewhere, someone is having a good time. It’s the reason that our missionaries wandered the globe making women wear woolen dresses in the tropics. It’s the reason that we forced a change of governments in Iran in 1953 and in Chile twenty years later. It’s tied up in the reason that we removed Saddam Hussein from power. In all of those, we had the belief that people were doing things in a way that we didn’t approve.

In our nation and in any society, there will always be a tension between the individual and the group. It’s been my observation, both as a student of history and by keeping my eyes open, that while individuals screw up from time to time, to make a royal mess of things requires the idiocy of crowds. That being said, I generally favor regulation to increase in direct proportion with size. Individuals deserve wide liberties, while groups often need to be restrained.

At the same time, I recognize that actions do have consequences and those consequences at times demand a response from the rest of us. When that’s the case, we have to balance the harm that could be done against the rights that we all should value.

Consider, then, the two issues that I named above. Take gay marriage first. A recent article in The Wall Street Journal considers the evidence of harms and benefits. The conclusion given, based on a review of the literature, is that there is evidence toward looser unions when same-sex couples are allowed to marry, and those same-sex couples have a lower concern about monogamy. That being said, children raised in same-sex couple households do as well as children in other relationships, and the time a relationship lasts and the number of partners tolerated in a relationship reflects overall changes in society in general.

What about guns? About 30,000 persons die in a given year from gun fire, and a couple hundred thousand are injured. The majority of deaths are suicides. Accidental deaths come in around 600. Contrast that with the number of defensive gun uses in the same period–in other words, cases in which someone uses a firearm to defend against a lethal threat–run anywhere between 108,000 and 2.5 million, depending on which study you accept. We also see that over the course of the last two decades, as gun laws have loosened and more states have allowed citizens to carry guns, the rate of violent crime has dropped. While cause and effect are hard to link, the evidence does show that more guns in more hands doesn’t result in more violence.

In other words, both gay marriage and gun ownership and carry have a mixed bag of results for society. This is where I have to fight against that Puritan yearning that so pervades American thinking. It is not the job of society to sweep in and right every wrong. A world in which no wrongs can occur is a soulless existence. Human beings are born with the power to choose, and that includes choosing right or wrong. It also includes a vast territory of grey, even presuming that our understanding of the two opposites is as good as we wish to believe.

I come back to my original idea. The fundamental principle of a society must be that each member is entitled to as much liberty as can be. The limits of liberty are defined by what would destroy the society or harm its members unduly. I realize that these terms are vague. To introduce clarity, look at the data that I cited above. Despite the mixed results, we see no evidence that either freedom will destroy us all. In fact, on balance, both freedoms create more good than harm. That being the case, I ask here a question that I often raise when the subject of control vs. freedom comes up:

Give me a reason to support control that does not depend on the theology regarding your favorite deity.

That means, obviously, the Christian God, but it just as well applies to pronouncements from social theorists in the absence of proof. Yes, the Bible in a literal reading is against homosexuality. Yes, a number of political philosophies are against private citizens having firearms. But America, a Constitutionally defined secular and agnostic nation, cannot base its laws on theology. Understand that by secular, I mean the law must be independent of any reference to an outside power, and by agnostic, I mean that without evidence and in the presence of speculation, the law must admit to not knowing.

We in this country have made the extraordinary choice to build our law on that principle. It was a good choice, both in terms of utility for the individual and the society as a whole. It was the correct choice if we believe that we all are born with rights. It is a choice that each generation has to make again and defend again.

Marriage Equality

I’ve written on the subject of gay marriage before, but with two cases being in front of the Supreme Court today and tomorrow, I have a question to those who oppose equal marriage rights:

How would the marriage of a same-sex couple affect your decision or ability to be married?

I have never heard an answer to that question, not even one that makes no sense. The talk is about defending the institution of marriage. Fine, where’s the threat to marriage?

I’m Libertarian, except when I have to go Green. This means that as long as you’re not hurting me, you should be free to do as you wish. I’ve never seen an explanation of how same-sex marriage harms me. I am not harmed when someone else does things in a way that I don’t do them. I am not harmed when someone else believes something that is different from my beliefs. To me, it’s that simple.

An Open Letter to David Horsey

David Horsey is a political columnist and cartoonist for the Los Angeles Times. In that capacity, he wrote and drew the following, titled, “While most Americans shun guns, the fearful keep buying more.” I’ve added a link, but since articles disappear from the Web, I’m adding the following quotation from what he wrote:

Gun owners make up half of the GOP. I would be surprised if there is not a correlation between that half and the half of Republicans who, in other polls, expressed the belief that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks and that weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. I would bet they are also many of the same folks who believe Barack Obama is a Muslim or a terrorist sympathizer or a socialist or Kenya-born or all of the above. They are likely the ones who think that liberal scientists have concocted the global-warming hoax and that the Justice Department and the United Nations are plotting to disarm Americans.

Dear Mr. Horsey:

Your article drips with prejudice, and as is typcial for people afflicted with that condition, your sneering attitude has blinded you to reality. I have known quite a few gun owners since I joined their ranks. What I have seen is a subset of America that is just like the whole of the country. Some gun owners are jerks. So are some Americans. Make any disparaging remarks about gun owners you like, but the same statement would be true about any other group you care to name. What I have seen, though, and what you’d see if you took the time, is that a great many gun owners are friendly people who welcome newcomers. At shooting ranges, I’ve had the chance to shoot several types of firearms that I don’t own, thanks to the openness of others. Given the prices of ammunition these days, that’s not as small a thing as you might imagine. I’ve learned things from my fellow enthusiasts. Whatever you would picture as being the case among a group of model train collectors, the same is true about gun owners. We share with each other and with anyone who wants to be a part of our group.

But, yes, we also involve ourselves in the politics of our country. What would you do if proposals floated around constantly to limit what a columnist or cartoonist might say or draw? We do stand up for our rights. And we stand up for yours. I made my voice heard in a variety of fora when a Danish cartoonist was attacked for his cartoons about Muhammed and Islam. As a writer and college English instructor, I care a great deal about freedom of expression and academic thought. As an Other with regard to religion, it is in my interest to live in a country that respects the right of each person to make individual choices about spiritual beliefs and practices. Before you say that I’m only acting in each case in my own advantage, I am a straight man, but I support equality in marriage for gays and lesbians, and I support the right of a woman to decide what she wants to do with her body and her pregnancy.

Contrary to the quoted paragraph above, I am more of a Libertarian than a Republican. In fact, on some issues, I’m Green. I wanted a public option in the healthcare reform act, and I wanted it to take effect immediately. While I recognized Saddam Hussein as a dangerous dictator, I had strong reservations against the invasion of Iraq and was aware that he had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Barack Obama is an American citizen, having been born in the State of Hawaii. He identifies himself as a Christian, and while I’m satisfied as to his honesty there, I also know that under our Constitution, there can be no religious test for holding the office of president. On the question of climate change, I accept the scientific evidence and consensus, as I do on evolution by natural selection. The Libertarian in me wants government to have strictly defined and limited powers. I want government to protect the rights and liberties of all people in this nation and to create opportunities for everyone where such creation is possible.

When it comes to the idea of some power attempting to disarm Americans, do recall that Dianne Feinstein once said in a 60 Minutes interview that if she had had the votes, she would have pushed a bill to demand that all of us turn in our guns. The treaty that the United Nations is discussing is a thicket of bureaucratic language, but the implications of the proposals are clear. Senator Schumer’s recent bill regarding background checks includes language that if taken literally would make felons out of a great many gun owners just for doing ordinary things such as loaning a gun to a friend or leaving one stored in a home with a roommate–things that are not harmful acts. But perhaps you regard suspicion of the government as paranoia. If so, please tell me how much you trust a government that over the years has done many things that any clear-headed human being would find despicable. Suspicion and watchfulness aren’t paranoia. They are necessary and healthy states for all citizens in our kind of society.

To show you how I am not the person that you depicted in your cartoon, I make this offer: If you’re ever in northwest Arkansas, you’re welcome to join me for a day of firearms instruction and freewheeling discussion. I offer this to you, someone who showed no generosity of spirit with regard to people like me. Now, is that the action of a paranoid sociopath who resides in some alternate reality?

Greg Camp

Reducing Gun Violence

Regular readers of this weblog will know that I am a believer in the basic right of all human beings to own and carry firearms. I have as much right to be armed as I do to have my tongue and my opinions with me wherever I go. I may be justifiably asked to keep my mouth shut and other matters concealed, but no one has the right to require more than that.

That being said, I do recognize that we have a problem of gun violence in America. Every year, around 30,000 of us die by gunfire. More than half of those deaths are due to suicide, but regardless of the cause, the number is too high. So what do we do?

Some propose restrictions on ownership and carry, while wanting to ban some types of firearms altogether. This approach makes no sense, given the more than 300,000,000 guns in private hands in this country and our long and porous borders. But there are things that we can do:

1. Create a functioning and available mental healthcare system. This ideally would be a part of general healthcare reform for everyone. I don’t have much faith in Obamacare, given its lack of a public option and the weak and mealy-mouthed manner of its passage and implementation, but that’s a step in the right direction. More–specifically the public option–needs to be done. Note that I don’t mean involuntary commitments or the violations of privacy. What I’m suggesting here is healthcare available to all who need it.

2. Reduce poverty. In my previous article on Alexandria, I named an educational system as a necessary element of any working democracy. I add to this the idea that education, such as I discussed here is a way out of poverty. Other intelligently run programs would have the same effect. We can debate at length whether poverty causes crime, but certainly living in poverty puts a person at greater risk–both for being a victim and an offender of violent crime. (Being wealthy brings a whole different class of crimes to commit, but that’s not generally related to guns.)

3. End our foolish drug laws. Much of our violence is related to illegal drugs. Treat drugs as a health problem, not a crime problem, and that motivating factor goes away. Al Capone didn’t sell beer nuts, after all.

We often hear from the gun control freaks that Europe is a model for good gun laws. Most countries in Europe have strict gun control–the Czech Republic being a shining exception for the moment–and those countries have lower gun violence than America. The difference is not actually that great, especially compared to other parts of the world, but the fact remains that Europe has fewer acts of gun violence than we do. But let’s note that Europe also has the three items that I just proposed. Certainly, it’s in doubt whether the Europeans will be able to afford the first two much longer, but in many cases, the problematic countries have chosen the California approach to government–lots of goodies, paid for by borrowing. Effective work for the first two can be done without requiring deficit spending–provided we are willing to pay for it. The third item would in fact save us money, both in prison and court costs and in expendatures for public health.

My three solutions have the advantage of not infringing on the rights of those who did nothing wrong in the vain hope of restraining those who make a life of doing bad acts. My answers also would show benefits in a variety of areas unrelated to gun violence. They are measured responses to a problem that has been getting better over the last two decades.

Perhaps they lack the quality of breathless bloviating, but I see that as a feature, not a bug.

What’s a Military Weapon?

In the current clamor for gun control, we hear a lot of talk about how no one needs a military weapon on the streets of America. This, of course, ignores the fact that the first ten amendments to our Constitution are not called the Bill of Needs, but whenever anyone wants to ban something, those of us who enjoy the thing have to explain why it’s necessary for us to have it.

But consider the idea for a moment that we should remove all military-style weapons from private ownership. Would someone please distinguish a military-style weapon from other types?

Some of you may be saying, isn’t it obvious? Actually, not really:

The top one looks like what Grandpa hunts deer with, while the bottom one is an evil, scary, black rifle used to slaughter innocents–that’s the position that gun control freaks take. The trouble is that functionally, the two are basically the same. The “evil” gun has a tricky gas system that’s prone to jamming if not kept meticulously clean, and the noble gun that would never do any harm shoots a more powerful cartridge, but they’re the same in both being semiautomatic. One squeeze of the trigger results in one round fired.

But all right, Grandpa usually hunts with a bolt-action rifle. How about this one:

It’s the U.S. Army’s bolt-action sniper rifle, functionally identical to the Remington 700 that many Americans use to hunt.

What about Grandpa’s revolver that he keeps in his nightstand? Could that be his Smith & Wesson Model 10, also known as an M & P revolver? The M and P stand for Military and Police.

Oh, but Grandpa’s muzzle-loading black powder rifle is surely acceptable, no?

Not really. Those are functionally identical to the rifles and muskets once given as G.I. to our troops.

How about his shotgun? Sorry, that was a trench broom in W. W. I. It’s still used by the military today to breach doors in urban combat.

The point here is that no firearm in existence is not a “military-style” weapon. When you hear a gun control freak say, “We only want your military guns,” said person means every gun you own.

I’m Right, No, I’m Right, No, I’m Right…

Last night (16 October 2012), I wasted time by watching the second presidential debate. Such events are worse than worthless. With that in mind, here’s a proposal for improvements:

1. Any candidate who fails to answer the question asked will be immediately ejected from the stage and not allowed back on during that election cycle.

2. Candidates will wear no-bark collars that the moderator can use to shut them up when the time is gone or when a clarification (fact-checking, in other words) is required.

3. Invitations will no longer be made based on scores in the latest polls, but on the qualities of the ideas that each candidate has offered. This means that the Greens and Libertarians will have guaranteed spots for now, while the Democans and Republicrats will need to work harder.

4. Mere squabbling will result in an immediate time-out period for the offenders. Children must be given consistent rules with no chance of arguing their way out of punishments.

5. No undecideds will get to ask questions. If you come in announcing that you don’t know anything, you’re probably running for office.

6. A committee of smart people will each be given a button that when pressed will make cries of “Bullshit!” blare from speakers around the room. Better yet, until we can get rid of the two major corrupt parties, it would be best to turn that on and leave it running the whole debate.

7. The debate will begin with a series of quotations about politicians, including the line about how anyone who wants to be elected is by definition not qualified for the job. Much of the evening should be taken up with readings from Mark Twain and H.L. Mencken.

8. Passages from the Constitution and relevant laws about the powers and limitations of the office in question will also be read before the debate begins. In addition, remarks on how the person holding the office works for us, not the other way around.

9. Prayers to all gods will be made afterward, along with sacrifices of at least two fatted oxen, in hopes that we will be shown mercy for tolerating such fools.

And most importantly,

10. Bats will be issued to audience members. They will line up in two rows after the debate is over, and the candidates will be required to walk in between. The audience will be given blanket immunity for anything that happens during that promenade.

There’s ten for you. Carve them on marble tablets, and plant them inside every hall of power in this nation.

La Classe È Mobile?

University of California, Davis, Professor Gregory Clark has released a study of social mobility, focusing on class in England, with some reference to other countries, including the United States. He looks in particular at English surnames over a period of the last thousand years. His conclusion is that there is a tendency to regress to the mean, no matter how high or low in social rank a family starts out. That means that the poor tend to float upward over generations to the middle class, while the rich sink into the same.

This should come as no surprise to those of us who read old books. Plato discusses this idea in his dialogues. We’ve also heard the old line about how the first generation builds wealth, the second spends it, and the third returns to mediocrity. It’s interesting to see that the poor tend toward the middle, as well.

The study is detailed, while its conclusions are tentative, but for social policy, we can draw our own:

1. The middle class is not a bad place to be. We’ve told ourselves that being on top is the only prize worth winning, and the truth of that is a matter of debate, but life in the middle can be lived. Population studies tell us that most people are in the middle, anyway, with regard to ability.

2. The study suggests that the efforts of the wealthy to provide opportunities to their children often do no good. The implication is that the children aren’t necessarily born with their parents’ abilities. That latter statement would seem to be true about children born to lower than average parents–often they are born with more potential. This suggests that we should give up on forcing every child to be equal in academic performance. There are basic skills and areas of knowledge that every citizen needs, but when it comes to more advanced levels, children will sort themselves out, and schools should let them. Trade schools after high school would be of much greater advantage to many students, and universities could return to academic pursuits. Schools should provide the opportunity for students to rise to their level of ability and be satisfied with that.

3. Another set of social policies supported here is the combination of a safety net and inheritance taxes. The poor need time to rise to the middle, while the rich will benefit little in useful ways from having wealth passed on to them. (In the latter case, it would be simple to make an exception for family farms or small businesses.)

There is one final point to make. We should know this, but the tail ends of the bell curve are tiny in terms of the number of people in them. Social policy for decades has been aimed at creating a Lake Wobegon world in which all children are above average, but that’s unrealistic. Instead, we end up with something more like Kurt Vonnegut’s short story, “Harrison Bergeron,” a world that weighs down people of ability in the name of equality. We should celebrate ability where we find it–and go looking for it everywhere.

Advice to Do-gooders

The older I get (and some say that I was born at fifty), the more I wonder how much good we can do for people in general. In thinking about the subject, I’ve come to the following observations–or perhaps they’re rules:

1. First, do no harm.

Yes, that’s an old one, not original to me. But think about all the efforts to achieve good that have ended up causing more harm. Missionaries circled the globe to convert the natives, only to destroy local cultures, spread diseases or acquire new ones, and generally take whatever was valuable in Western terms from the land. Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs have had mixed results, but anyone who had a goal to create a culture of dependence would be hard-pressed to come up with a straighter line to that result.

The rule here is that whatever good you propose, make it small, make it based on evidence and logic, and make it able to expire if it’s not working.

2. Help those who are willing to be helped.

An obvious case of someone who won’t take help is an addict. I had friends in college who smoked. As much as I wanted to help them stop, they weren’t willing to quit. I’ve known alcoholics who refused to take steps to break out of the addiction–and I’m not talking about Alcoholics Anonymous here, since in my observation, that group is often a substitute for the other drug.

Someone who wants to be helped recognizes the need, recognizes the expertise of the person offering assistance, and wants to work to make things better. That may sound arrogant, but there’s a measure of arrogance in trying to help, anyway. What it’s saying is that if the recipient of the help isn’t going to work with the helper, no good will be achieved.

3. In America, help has to take our spirit of independence and freedom into account.

Most people in this country either came here or come from those who did. They or their ancestors left somewhere else to find a better life, and part of what made that better has been and still is our belief in the rights of individuals to govern their own lives.

The case of climate change will illustrate this point. The scientific evidence is clear. The world is warming up, and humans are primarily the cause. Some on the left argue that the solution is to bunch people together into dense communities, require everyone to use public transportation, and otherwise live a life that is controlled from outside and above. But that won’t work here. The fundamental character of Americans is opposition to control. There are solutions that can work within our values, and those are the only ones that will succeed with us.

4. Physician, heal thyself.

The best place to do good is in your own life. That’s also the hardest field of action, which is why so many prefer to meddle in the lives of others. Read Plato’s Republic. Some see that book as a guide to commanding a city, but the real message is how to organize one’s own mind. Arrange the city of your own mind before you commence to exporting to others.

Take these observations for what they’re worth. I give lots of advice on this weblog, but at the least, I’ve given here six fewer than Moses, and you won’t get burned for not following them.

Sing to the Tune of a Different Choir

According to a poll released yesterday (9 October 2012) by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, Americans in increasing numbers do not affiliate with any particular religious organization. The results are published here. There are a lot of data in the survey results, but the overall trend is that not belonging to a group is becoming more common among young people. That group tends to lean left in American politics. There’s no concentration in any one ethnic group, income level, or, surprisingly, education level. Almost seventy percent of the unaffiliated believe in God (or gods?) in some fashion. All told, one person out of five in this country now does not identify with an institution.

I see this as a good trend. As I’ve said before, I don’t trust large groups. Human beings, taken individually, are often good, but put them together, and they sink to the lowest level of behavior and mentality and stay there. This is true in businesses, academic institutions, governments, and religions. The megaphone of association magnifies the worst in us.

This is also a continuation of the Protestant movement that began in Europe in the late Middle Ages. The assertion of that movement was that an individual is responsible for and capable of communicating with the divine directly without the need of another person. That view was a heresy in the best sense of the word. Heresy comes from a Greek word meaning “choice.” In that way, Protestantism fits in nicely with the general trend toward individual rights that has been working its way through the minds of thinkers in the West for thousands of years. Institutions are often the antithesis of choice, and it’s good to see more and more Americans either loosening or leaving those institutions.

The trend here is reminiscent of a book by Martin Gardner, The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener. Gardner was a noted skeptic on matters of religion and the supernatural, and yet in that book, he identified himself as someone who believed in God and the afterlife. He did this on his own, as a result of his reading and thinking and also of his personal nature. He made a leap of faith, and that leap had to be done out of his own choice, not at the calling of an institution.

In summary, this is the distribution of power that is necessary for a functioning democracy. The more of us who take on intellectual and spiritual responsibility for our own lives, the better. Carry on, my brothers and sisters in personal faith.