What To Do With Lawbreakers?

Here we have the problem of sentencing. Sentences of restuition and fines favor the rich. Sentences of punishment and deprivation don't create positive change. Sentences of rehabilitation are difficult to implement, are arguably unfair and inconsistent and many see them as a way for the criminal to get over on the law abiding.

The answer to that question will determine how we address issues like the rights of criminals to the means of Self-defense, voting, organizational power (business ownership, church/non-profit membership) and other things that may not be human rights, but are the rights of the free. After a person has served their sentence, are they forever a second-class citizen? If they have to petition for their rights back, who decides? Is their decision strictly rules based or does judgement play a part? Who's judgement do we trust?

The guidance to all these questions will come down to "Are people basically good or basically bad?" I like to think people are basically good and that it might be me in chains before the court, so how might I want to be treated? It might be me judged guilty, what would be the reasonable sentence? It might be me blinking in the sun after years incarcerated, how would I want to be treated?
Or what do you think we should do with the convicted? Where should the law draw the line between jail and a fine? What should society kill for, and how should we police ourselves? Can a debt to society ever be paid, or should a conviction be a scarlet letter, forever branding you and limiting your life?

My COPPA Letter

"Please focus enforcement on YouTube and other large corporations and not on the individual creators. By all means truly bad actors should be pursued, but there is so much content that attracts a mixed audience that the benefit of the doubt should given to creators. This is further amplified by YouTube's internal filtering that makes serving adult audiences  much more difficult. YouTube channels that focus on adult interests have to use language and tools that are "family friendly" if they want their viewership to survive. This makes most of the content attractive to adults, teens and children.

Also, a large concern I have is the standards this ruling is setting for a post-monopoly online video world. Should YouTube's internet video dominance be toppled or broken up, smaller video platforms serving more diverse viewerships may emerge. While Alphabet/YouTube has the infrastructure and funding to enact deep changes, a more leveled market will have smaller platforms that may not. With Platform as a Service and Infrastructure as a Service (See Google Cloud Platform, Microsoft Azure, Amazon Web Services) this can affect the safety and security of tenants on such platforms if the rentiers are required to police them. Without access to these services, online video hosting may be prohibitively expensive, chilling speech, silencing minorities and marginalized populations and reinforcing large corporation market control and gatekeeping.

Online speech is the printing press of the early 21st century. It is a democratizing force that puts power in the hands of the people. Online video has lowered the barrier to entry and created a wealth of content and information free at the point of access for everyone. Protecting children from predatory advertising is important, I wish you well in your enforcement of that. Please don't chill the speech of many to stop the wrongs of a few."

You can leave a comment on the YouTube COPPA situation as well, before December 9th 2019.

Streaming Services

Disney Plus has all the media talking talking about streaming and the market regarding it. Stories about Netflix and other services cracking down on password sharing and the shuffle of content are rampant. So I might as well write one too.

Netflix is now in a first mover disadvantage position. When Netflix started, password sharing was allowed because it created subscribers. It's how I came to the service. When Netflix was the biggest and best player on the block it could get most streaming rights and now the other content creators are cutting out the Netflix middleman. Netflix can see that Disney+ and other producer controlled streaming services mean that the content owners are no longer going to license to them. To their credit, they've been working on this issue for 3-5 years now, trying to transition to a content creation platform. But the problem is they can't sustain growth that way. The content churn and loss of fan favorites that aren't driving new subscriptions is turning off the existing subscribers.

In my humble opinion, Hulu is not going to be here long. It was a beautiful experiment that will be the first casualty of Disney+. Disney is now the sole owner. What content is not Disney distributed is going to be returning to the producers streaming sites and Disney-controlled content will migrate to Disney+. Netflix is at the middle of the end. They have the brand and subscription base to putter along for a while, but their original content isn't enough to draw new subs and longer term subscribers are going to start leaving it for other pastures.

Amazon Prime is setting itself up as the next Hulu and partnering with nearly every content producer except Disney. You can add HBO and Starz and others onto Prime, pay and watch in one place. As you can also buy* media there that is accessible even after most streaming rights move, it's my new choice for best streaming site. It's too bad the player is not great. It's improved recently though.

YouTube needs to get people subscribing to be profitable. However it's been free so long that that might kill it, especially with the new Terms of Conditions rolling out that presages a content purge.  The December 10th changes look to remove popular but advertiser unfriendly content. It could also lead to ad-blocking users being banned. Together these could likely lead to a steep drop in user base. Without the free ad-viewing and if people don't subscribe, Google/Alphabet could close it or triple-down on corporate advertising accounts.

Specialist content like anime and web-humor (like Dropout/CollegeHumor) will probably keep going, but suffer from the coming YouTube changes. This is just speculation, but if YouTube goes hard on "no longer commercially viable," against sites getting revenue for advertiser unfriendly videos through Patreon or some other paid platform, these sites will lose their best advertising. I think their best move is shared platforms like Amazon Prime and VRV. Corporate sponsorship like Sony buying Funimation might help some of the largest ones.

 *A 3 letter shorthand for "license non-exclusive streaming rights that can be taken away at any time"

Non-forceful solutions

People say "Firearms safety" and training. Aside from SECURING YOUR FIREARMS that is not the issue. Safety training prevents accidents, not murder. Accidents are at a very low level. Training to know how to use a gun would logically increase the amount of death, as more shootings would be competent shootings, resulting in less wounds and more fatalities.

The problems are crime (robbery assault et al), murder and suicide. In reverse order:

Suicide, non-forceful solutions;

 1. Reduce "Shit Life Syndrome" by increasing social supports for families and individuals. That mean s food security, housing security, availability of healthcare, dental et al that can be accessed without a burden to the person. I think that UBI and government programs can do this faster in our existing framework then community based solutions but that's method, not solution.
 2. Beyond securing the base of Mazlow's Pyramid, rebuilding community is key. That means creating a culture of inclusiveness, and non-hierarchal mentors and other supportive people. It means mental health services to increase coping skills and emotional healthcare. While these people are not mentally ill in a DSM-V way, the tools to help people before they choose to kill themselves by killing others are in the realm of mental health.

Murder, non-forceful solutions;

3. While the above will reduce both individual suicide and mass murder as suicide, there is an additional factor, Revenge. American society is built on the concept of retribution. Our system is built of using naked force to exact vengeance for wrongs. While the catharsis of seeing Rambo or The Punisher or even the courts harm people who've wronged them is great, it's creates a culture of violence as the solution. Combine that with individualist philosophy and a feeling of being ignored or unheard (see community above). This isn't turnkey, changing this means changing our minds first, our words and art, our laws and disagreeing with those that support revenge as justice.

Crime, non-forceful solutions;

4. The remaining motivation for using force, specifically firearms, to harm someone is generally financial gain. Robbery et al. I believe that ensuring that people's needs are taken care of will help with a lot of this. There is also greed. People who want more and would rather use force to take it, the work to earn it. This again becomes a social solution of de-empathizing conspicuous consumption, praising the inexpensive and functional, promoting people making their own art and aesthetic improvements.

Nothing is going to eliminate all crime, murder, suicide. But these changes will go a long way to reducing those root causes.

Even Evil Lives Have Value

No human is worthless. Life have value and universal support must be universal. Even to the worst mass murderers etc.  
This doesn't conflict with my belief that people harmful to others and society may need to have violence, even lethal violence inflicted upon them. It's like medicine or toxin/antitoxin. Cutting out septic body parts may be necessary to save the person and other organs. But the ethical doctor planning surgery will try to limit the amount excised and attempt to heal the injured parts before resorting to removing them.


Or to be explicit: We (as society) may have to kill a Nazi etc. That is a tragedy we may have to act upon to help save society. To protect people doing no harm. BUT even the worst Nazi is a human, with human rights. They are not expendable, they are not worthless. If the person can be saved and the memetic infection flushed (or made non-virulent) that is always a better course.  


We cannot successfully advocate for the abolishment of prisons (replaced by humane secure hospice facilities keeping people who hurt others safe and separated from society) AND say things like "Throw RKelly under the jail."

Either the torture and inhumane conditions of jail are a just punishment, or they are not. Nobody wants to be seen advocating for the rights of assholes, but if we want a world without the horror of prisons, we need to accept the cost that the truly bad and harmful people will be housed humanely and treated medically at society's expense.

This is partly why I want to secure humane housing, utilities, healthcare and food support for ALL people, regardless of means, criminal history or other circumstance. Otherwise there will always be the "Why are my taxes supporting $person when $person2 is more deserving?" My argument is: Our societal cost should support us all.

When I talk about Universal rights to housing, healthcare etc. I include our political enemies. I include those who wish harm and even have done harm if we've managed to stop them without killing them. We may need to restrict some freedoms to quarantine their harm from others (like humane prisons / rehab facilities) but we don't get to categorize them as less then human. We don't have the right to torture them or starve them or enslave them. Human rights apply to all humans. 
 Without this, we risk the bigoted traps of the past. 

The Trench Pistol

Alternate History, WWI:

The Pedersen device was designed to turn a 5 shot heavy caliber bolt action rifle into a 30 shot light pistol caliber semiauto. The idea being that once you get into the trench fast and furious fighting is more the norm.

The Pedersen device was a colossal failure, only spared from historical ignominy by the fact the war ended before it was deployed. But the idea is incredibly cool. Beyond that, it's an illustration of the contradiction of the traditional trench war. The armies were organized around full power, long range range rifles, but once you get into trenches, these rifles are nearly unusable and pistols and submachine-guns become more ideal.

Adulthood

Saw that and was thing how it integrates on some modern gun control discussion:



Once again this raised a question I've had for decades. How do we Define "Adult"? My default description is a person who is capable of informed consent, and has the rights and responsibilities as an autonomous person. Or more simply, a person who is not the dependent of or subordinate to the will of* another. My philosophy is that an adult, barring specific individual limitations**, should have freedoms equal to all other adults. People being equal under the law.

*Like with power of attorney. Some people are unable to manage their own affairs and have another person with a power to make decisions for them.
**Like being a convicted felon, a limitation placed by due process onto a person specifically because of evidence or actions. As opposed to a restriction placed on a person because they are a member of a class of people.

This Is Virtue

"Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

-Emma Lazarus, The New Colossus

I'm well aware our history as Americans is bigoted. Machines lubricated in the blood of the poor, their pedestals and working parts forged by slaves, names forgotten to history. The land stolen from its inhabitants and abused. That the basic ideals were made by rapists who denied the humanity of others. Those ideals, read without context in plain language are the building blocks of my understanding of right and wrong. When they say "All People," they don't exclude the people entering the country irregularly. They don't exclude people on the other side of the world, they don't exclude people because of who and how they love.

The rights of the PEOPLE, means all people. The country has the room, it has the resources and it has the needs for more people. Our ideals, at their plain language best do not allow for the detention of the child who's committed a crime no greater than jaywalking. A crime that only exists because we deign it to. Our ideals do not allow for the torture of even convicted criminals, much less people being detained before trial, much less children being detained for a crime they are not old enough to understand if it was stated in plain language to them.

We like to call this "The Land of the Free, Home of the Brave." These people show more Bravery than most natural born Americans, risking everything, even life, for a chance of being freer. Some like to say "The Land of the Free, Because of the Brave." And I ask you, who shows more bravery? A family trekking here at the cost of everything? Or a well paid, well equipped, well supported government agent greeting them with a gun and directing them to a cage? We are destroying our freedom by locking up and deporting the brave people who come here seeking it. We'll only have the freedom left to Choose between CNN and Fox News. The freedom to choose which color sugar water we like best, which fast food restaurant we eat from. The rest will be directed to us by government bootleather.

We prototyped this behavior on accused terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. We now expand it to migrants and those that the government accuses of being inside our borders without a permission slip. Who will they deploy it to next? The people who dare to live and love as their heart leads them? Those who like guns? People without financial means?

First they came for the Arabs and Muslims, and called them terrorists,
Now They've come for the immigrants, calling them an invasion,

Who will they come for next? 

If you don't speak out against it, will anyone speak up for you when the time comes?

Competition and Corporate Death

Consider, the worst aspects of Capitalism are all based in competition. They are a result on the desire to "win." They are based in the fear of someone else doing what you won't and pricing you out of the market. They are based on greed or the fear that you won't have enough. These are all traits that society has made by telling men that they have to *win* at all cost. Traits that have been reinforced by media, government and social groups. Traits that promote stereotypically masculine expression to the point that it harms others.

This doesn't address Rate on return for capital (R) > Income growth (I), and how the capital owning class inherently has access to growing wealth that the working class doesn't. But a "Humble" capitalism that doesn't engage in price warfare, deceptive practices, and other harmful activities to maintain or grow their business is possible with a simple moral change. Iterative Prisoners Dilemma. If the only way to win, or indeed stay in the game, is to cooperate and play right, the system would work significantly better.

Not perfect, and addressing the needs of all first is a separate problem that needs addressing first. Perhaps with a mechanism that slows R's growth as compared to I. But Imagine a check on business that destroys companies and redistributes capital on the first offense against society by the business. Imagine this existing in a society with a Universal Basic Income, guaranteed housing, food, healthcare safety net, so destroying the company may put people out of work, but won't starve them or make them homeless.* Imagine it in a world where companies stay small and local and interconnect rather then growing monopolies. (Example, Amazon, where the warehouses are separate entities from the whole and each other, contracting with the website and logistics as separate entities. Bring back anti-trust) In such a system you can censure the offending site/company and the meta-company can find/contract with a competitor.

#DeathPenaltyForCorporations

*Yes, I'm saying the businesses hold their employees hostage to prevent being punished for their wrongs.

Socialist Notes

Consider how those least alienated from their labor (contractors, entrepreneurs, owner/operators) are often the most vehemently Libertarian. (Possibly it's the other way around). Their business is an extension of their self. Doctors, Lawyers, entertainers, programmers, small business owners are often the ones making the case that taxation and redistribution (and regulation) robs them of their autonomy.

The other beneficiaries of libertarian policy, Corporations and the very rich are easy to villainize. It is clear how these policies are promulgated to keep and increase their wealth. They pretend that they are the same as the basic business units, the Sole Proprietor and the Unlimited Partnership. When they have amassed such wealth and power that they are more akin to governments than doctors.

When we think of alienated labor, socialism and corporaticracy, perhaps we need to evaluate the profit motive and who labor belongs to. If we set a base understanding that labor belongs to the laborer; the contractors, owner/operators and other "professionals" are going to have a claim to the basic ideals of libertarianism. Especially if we are trying to design a system that uses as little coercion as possible.

Perhaps we can develop a system that precludes these people from amassing outsize power, to ensure there can always be competition and that the fruits of their labor don't bear the seeds of corporate control.

Or we can attack the profit motive. Assuming we can meet the needs of the people, why should they work? To gain access to luxuries? How do we motivate people to engage in the hard work of becoming professionals (we'll still need doctors and nurses and lawyers and other specialists), when they can live comfortably without it. Will there be enough people who want to become these things who have the talent to become these things to fulfill societies needs? Note that we don't have enough nurses now. If people don't work for profit, maybe they can work for others? For the betterment of humanity? The biggest question, how do we make that transition with as little coercion as possible?

Or is coercion worth it? See my previous post positing the idea of a perfect prison. In short, imagine a place where your needs are perfectly met, but your labor (as little as possible, and taking into consideration ability) is coerced. Where you have no freedom to hurt others, and none can hurt you. Where you are not allowed to leave or to change the rules in any meaningful way. Is that an acceptable solution to the problem?

The Economics of Firearms

The economy of the firearms industry is unlike nearly any other market. Aside from the political issues inherent with guns, the raw market forces are unlike few others. You have a very conservative* buying bulk, durable goods that are resistant to planned obsolescence and are relatively affordable. Add in the inherent danger and commensurate limits on use and you'd think that the public market for firearms would be niche and bespoke. But the actual market is much stranger.

Let me be clear that I am only talking about the US firearms market as I understand it. Other markets have different constraints and I know practically nothing about them. The US firearms market has multiple major supplies and overlapping market segments. There are cultural reasons for the popularity of guns in the US and the fact that there have never been strong restrictions on purchasing guns have created a large market.

The demand for affordable guns has always been strong and has traditionally been filled by low end manufacturers, inexpensive imports and surplus military firearms. These firearms historically have been the guns of choice for the impoverished and the working class. These buyers will often own 1 or a small handful of guns with a very specific focus. Typically hunting rifles and shotguns and inexpensive handguns for self protection. The affordable market typically doesn't get the popular gun, or the most powerful calibers. They fall into the category of having a gun, even if it isn't the perfect gun for what they want to do.

The middle class gun community has a lot of variety. Fewer buyers here limit themselves to a less then a half-dozen guns. They typically either branch out into buying and trading many different guns that are designed for more specialized roles or they find a collecting niche and begin to amass large collections of specific guns. Often surplus arms from historic wars or specific countries. Those that spread out usually buy a better quality of gun than the working class gun owner. Often new guns from large manufacturers. You'll find that they may have a dozen pistols in 4 different calibers all that fill some niche. Or a safe full of different rifles with different actions, barrel lengths and other specializations. These gun owners often trade and sell guns that they've grown tired of to finance new and interesting guns.

Wealthy gun owners also tend to behave like middle class gun owners, but more so. With larger collections, more expensive new firearms, custom made guns and more restricted types of guns. Wealthier collectors are more likely to have machineguns and large themed collections.

*As in unlikely to adopt new technology

Freedom and Security

This is more of a philosophical question as there really isn't any way to quantify the value of freedom. It's the root of the gun debate happening now, and I have serious issues with analyzing it.

My foundation in ethics is "it's wrong to harm others." My foundation in politics is "Freedom is something we should maximize, within the framework of ethics." and is *strongly* influenced by the modern "Liberal" ideals and interpretations of Enlightenment concepts. This give me a knee-jerk "Small l" libertarian bent. You should be allowed to do what you want, as long as it doesn't hurt people. I oppose (generally) prior restraint. You are innocent until proven guilty and it is wrong to stop an innocent person from doing something that isn't hurting others. This isn't unlimited, we can have safety standards and require they are met to reduce the hazard and harm to all people, even if that harm isn't direct or is only probable. My example here is explosives. I think that generally, people should be able to buy explosives, BUT, they'd have to prove that they can store them safely, not have any reason to suspect that they will use the explosives to harm others and other restrictions too detailed to get into.

I've been able to integrate socialism into this framework by having it as a social good to make people free of hunger, homelessness and health issues at the cost of taxation and government force to acquire those taxes.

My problem is that It's quite likely I'm wrong, and the current gun debate illustrates this in ways that are making me very uncomfortable with myself. Firstly, my political basis is inherently flawed. The writers that those Enlightenment ideals came from were sexist bigots. The society that has arose from these ideal is sexist and bigoted therefore. Secondly, I can't quantify the value of freedom. 70-100 million people exercise their freedom to own guns (in the US) and it has a cost of ~38 thousand lives and ~85 thousand injuries a year (CDC data, 2016). It is easy to quantify the *cost* of gun ownership.

Aside from defensive gun use, (Which may be less important if there aren't guns to enable people to do harm and therefore is an argument in itself), I cannot quantify the value of people owning guns. I cannot compare the two. The sentiment that I am seeing is that the lives and suffering gun ownership costs far outweighs the value of peaceful ownership. Since peaceful ownership cannot be quantified, the opposite cannot be argued, except as an appeal to freedom. The appeal to freedom resonates with me because of that political foundation, but it is likely wrong.

Which makes me question my entire position on freedom vs security. I can quantify security, I can't quantify freedom. I cannot say that a prison, where all of our needs are met, but we are unable to do anything that is harmful, or have any autonomy (The Dollhouse in "Dollhouse" for example) is "Bad" except by saying that "freedom is valuable". Evidence based policy could lead us to a security utopia. And aside from saying that this would almost certainly stifle innovation, the life of the Eloi is attractive, especially in a world without Morlocks.

My basis for supporting gun rights:

My root reason to support the ability of people to keep and bear arms is the right of self-defense. I have a romantic yearning to support the right of the people to violently oppose the government, but the reality of modern warfare, the current state of police and National Guard equipment and organization and other factors make that more of a philosophy then something that would ever work.

Self-defense I believe is the only morally defendable for anything close to our existing gun control state. I believe that self-defense is a fundamental right of all people. I also believe that firearms are a useful tool for self-defense, as they are effective, easy to use, often compact and unobtrusive enough to be carried where self-defense may be needed without causing harm or panic.

With self-defense being a right of all people, we need to not unnecessarily deny the tools of self-defense to people. I believe that people are innocent until proven guilty and that prior restraint on people that haven't been proven dangerous will deny more people that need to protect themselves then it will stop those that want to commit harm.

I enjoy sport shooting, and generally think that people should be able to do it as it's a fairly safe activity as typically practiced. But just because people can safely use dangerous things doesn't mean we shouldn't try to reduce the damage those things cause in other situations. If sport shooting was the basis for gun ownership it could be significantly regulated with little harm to lawful use.

If you are only taking your gun to the range and competitions, waiting periods, interviews, licensing and more are all reasonable as you can still do what you want, it just take more time and money. You could easily make the argument that no sport is worth the death and injuries that guns can cause when used criminally or negligently, and that much of sport shooting could functionally be replaced with airguns and other non-lethal equipment.

The issue I have with gun rights is that my morality is based on evidence too. And the evidence I've seen is that more harm (measured by injuries and deaths) is caused by our current system then is prevented (measured by lawful acts of self-defense). It's a difficult comparison to make as many acts of self-defense are unreported and there is probably a deterrence effect that is difficult to measure. Also harm is often caused by people who have obtained their firearms in an illicit manner. However, there wouldn't be that secondary market if our primary market of guns to lawful people didn't exist or was significantly more heavily restricted.

Why Socialism?

Because austerity and "Businesses need tax breaks to create jobs": Fuck it, we tax them ALL the money, and give them back what we think they need #Communism Seriously, the older I get, the more radically socialist I feel.

I want people to have freedom, but I really want people to be fed, healthy and have a place to live and if that means some Banker makes 100K a year instead of 300K a year cry me a fucking river, or live in a van down by it for a year. We need to throw throw open the storehouses of wealth and bring those resources to help all.  While I think there is a path to a semblance of civil rights from this point in time, I don't see a path to economic justice from here that doesn't involve the apocalypse. And true social justice needs economic justice. Again, I want people to invent and create and to get paid for it. I want to invent and create and get paid too.

But FIRST, we need to invent a system that doesn't require people working for next to free to afford food. We need to create a world where labor is what you do because you want to and can, not because you have to. A big part of that will be pumping money and standards into the developing world If we want to close down the sweatshops, we need to feed the people who are sweating. We need to house them, we need to make sure they can receive medical care. As a culture we need to stop asking "Do they deserve it?" and start saying "No one should suffer."

Anarchism and Warfare

“Weak states produce more complex wars. The DRC government faces more than 70 armed groups. Governments in a fragile position like this must focus less on neutralizing Hydra-headed rebellions and more on co-opting groups to divide rivals. “

This is a consideration for the more anarchist models of society. Without central and overall government that guarantees the rights of people, You are limited to the guarantees of the community. If another community enacts violence yours, and if other communities can’t or won’t come to your communities aid, your communities rights will be denied or destroyed. It’s important that we address bigotry, religious hatred, and picayune conflicts at a root level before removing the checks on self-organizing groups.

The anarchist models of society that I’ve seen would be a great boon to ethnic separatists and supremacists as the freedom to discriminate is inherent and unchecked without greater authority. Being able to grow their strength in peace on the fringes of anarchist meta-society* will enable them to be more effective at waging war on anarchist communities that they don’t like. The resources of those communities are likely to enable the creation of a state that cannot effectively be opposed buy individual communities, and communities focused on the wellness and happiness of their members are going to be less willing and less likely to go to war against a fully militarized opponent.

Alternately, several small, disparate and less powerful self-organized communities that exist in opposition to each other or others can engage in conflicts that not only bring turmoil to a region, but can affect other nearby communities that don’t have anything to do with the conflict. A coalition of communities trying to bring peace to the region are going to have similar problems to the UN in the article above.

I’m not saying that humankind is limited to state hierarchies for the rest of eternity. I am saying that anarchy is the dissolution of unnecessary hierarchy, and maybe a Federation/United government is necessary hierarchy to ensure the life and peace of the meta-society that the self-organizing communities exist in.

*Meta-society: The gestalt of the totality of anarchist communities in the world or region.

Thoughts on the Second Amendment

I don't make pro-gun arguments from the position of the Second Amendment. Just because something is legal doesn't mean that it is just, right, or ethical. The Constitution has several things in it that have been overturned since it was written, and the Founding Fathers were asshole slave owners. However, many of the anti-Second Amendment arguments are fatally flawed.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Looking at the writings of the asshole slave owners at the time it is clear they meant "People" (White male landowners at the time) should be able to own firearms. But putting the historical context argument aside the language of the amendment itself is both clear that it's meant to be an individual right and consistent with other rights that we've interpreted in the modern time to apply to all people.

Let's get the pesky "Well regulated militia" part out of the way. Well regulated means trained, equipped and drilled. Militia is an irregular force of "Citizen Soldiers." Specifically as the early US didn't want a standing army, but the ability to call up a local force to deal with military issues, including what we would now call police issues (riots and so forth). In order for an effective militia to exist without a large government expenditure, they have to train and equip themselves. Therefore people need to be able to be armed. And a strong argument can be made that this entire amendment is no longer needed as we have a standing army, the National Guard, state militias and a militarized police force. Further, these local militias were slave patrols and reinforced the bigotry and classism of the day.

The 2nd amendment doesn't address those organizations as they didn't exist at the time and were considered antithetical to personal and State freedom. The militias of the era were meant to be a local check on Federal and State overreach as they can't suppress the people if the people are the military. (Again, "people" for their purposes were white landowning men). It's actually a pretty Communist idea if you think about it from the modern perspective. An army of the people that is empowered to rebel if the government isn't serving them. In reality, the militias organized in ways that reinforced the power of the States and Federal government and marginalized people have been killed, enslaved and interned without being able to defend themselves.

But that clause only describes the "why" not the what. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" stands by itself. It is the core of the amendment. Note that the Constitution talks about the Federal Government, the States and the people. The people in this amendment are the same people in all the other amendments. The amendment isn't saying the states have a right to arms. The amendment isn't saying the militias have a right to arms. And it is clearly a check or the Federal Government, just as the rest of the Bill of Rights is. And we've decided that "the people" in the other amendments applies to just about everyone, even if in practice some people are more equal than others.

Some will bring up how the Heller decision overturned the stare decisis to reinforce the idea that the Second Amendment is an individual right. But stare decisis is not holy writ, we overturn it whenever we find that it's not consistent with our modern understanding. That is a core part of what the Supreme Court should do. We don't think overturning Dred Scott was wrong and we'd be happy to overturn Citizens United. But for the sake of argument, let's look at the previous ruling, Miller. Miller was a bootlegger and if I remember correctly, a murderous felon. And he was convicted for possessing a short barreled shotgun. And the Supreme Court upheld his conviction as a short barreled shotgun wasn't considered a militia appropriate weapon. By the logic of Miler, the AR-15 is clearly a protected weapon as it is suitable for militia use. Miller opens the door for machineguns and rocket launcher to be considered second amendment protected as they are arms in common use by the military. A Miller interpretation would be less protective of handguns and other more civilian weapons. So I don't think leaning on stare decisis is the best antigun argument.

Savage World Firearms, Simplified.

Simplified Version of Gun Rules:

Perhaps the previous regularization still has too many caveats. The rules can be simplified further to a simple list. This tends to favor the firearm and make guns more powerful, but reduces addendum rules.

Unchanged Rules:

• Black Powder rules are unchanged.
• Shotgun rules are unchanged.

Rate Of Fire:

• Manual firearms are single shot, bolt action, lever or pump action. 
• Also single and double action revolvers and derringers
• Manual firearms have ROF1.
• Semiautomatic firearms are guns that fire a single shot per trigger pull. 
• Semiautomatic firearms have ROF2.
• Full auto firearms are guns that fire repeatedly when the trigger is pulled until the ammo is gone or the trigger us released. 
• From machine pistols to belt fed machineguns, there are many different types of fully automatic firearms.
• A sub-machinegun is a fully automatic pistol caliber longarm, typically smaller then a carbine or rifle.
• Fully automatic guns have ROF3.

Damage and Range:

• Handguns, rifles and sub-machineguns are available in all pistol calibers. 
• Carbine and Rifle ammunition can only be fired from rifles.
• Longarms chambered in pistol calibers have the same stats as handguns.
• Light pistol ammunition does 2d4 damage and have a penetration of AP1
• Light pistol has a range of 10/20/40
• Regular pistol ammunition does 2d6 damage, and has a penetration of AP2
• Regular pistol ammo has a range of 12/24/48
• Magnum pistol ammunition does 2d6+1 damage and has a penetration of AP2. 
• Magnum firearms and ammo is only available after WWI.
• Magnum pistol ammo has a range of 12/24/48
• Carbine ammunition does 2d8 damage,  and has a penetration of AP3
• Carbine ammo has a range of 24/48/96
• Rifle ammunition does 2d8+1 damage and has a penetration of AP4
• Rifle ammo has a range of 30/60/120

Fixing the Guns of Savage Worlds

Regularized Roscoe Rules:

Following up on my first post, I've revamped the cartridge firearms stats (the shooting rules are fine). This replaces the relevant tables in the book for my game and please feel free to use these for your games. Permission is granted to republish this information as desired. To my mind the rules for guns were nonsensical with some calibers being merged together while others that are similar having different stats and a complete lack of definition of difference for SMGs and pistol caliber longarms. Using these rules players and GMs should be able to develop pretty much any gun of the Wild West and later eras. I've also created an even further simplified version that I'll be posting separately.

Classification of Firearms Technology Levels:

I first had to divide the eras of firearms to make space for a later addition I'll want to make with Accessories and to provide for the development of ammunition over time. 

• Black Powder: State of firearms from the beginning of gunpowder to about 1850’s technology. These rules are unchanged from the book. 
• Classic: The Classic period is the 1850s to the beginning of WWI Semi-auto firearms and machineguns are unavailable. 
• Mid-Century: Includes WWI through WWII. Fully automatic and semi-auto guns are available, but less common. Accessories are mostly limited to Classic.
• Modern: Post WWII guns to the current day, with an emphasis on post 1980 designs and accessories. 
• Future: Guns and accessories that are not available yet.

Ammunition:

I've created a better and more simplified ammunition chart, keeping with the ideas of Savage Worlds. A gun’s damage (and armor penetration) relies entirely on its ammunition, not the firearm itself. A weapon's effective range is mostly a factor of it's ammunition, but is practically influenced by the type of gun as well. It is easier to shoot a longarm accurately than a handgun. For pistol ammo, this means that effective range is increased when fired from a rifle or SMG as opposed to a revolver or pistol. While gun enthusiasts will brawl to the flaming internet death over the different damage, ranges and penetration of various calibers, they generally can be boiled down to a couple of categories. These categories may even be too narrow and the simplified rules coming in a future post may be even more realistic.

The Savage Worlds rules are not granular enough to distinguish different sub-types of ammunition like hollowpoint, armor piercing or others, so I’ve not written about them. Older ammunition didn’t have the penetrating power that modern ammo has. Thus Classic period ammunition has less armor piercing capability then Mid-Century and later ammunition. The higher pressures required for magnum handguns and ammo require technology that wasn’t available until the Mid-Century period.

GMs should still feel free to specify the actual caliber of a firearm or found ammunition, especially if they are trying to impress upon the characters that they can't loot bodies to replenish their stockpile. These rules should not be taken to mean that a character can reload their Thomson SMG with 45 Colt rounds from a Single Action Army revolver. But all of that is merely description and fluff. I've written these rules to help GMs and players who may not be gun enthusiasts to have a simple set of numbers to apply fairly. And to allow gun enthusiasts playing characters with custom firearms to build (with GM approval) unique and interesting guns in the pulp style.

Handguns have no stocks and short barrels. Longarms have stocks and longer barrels and includes SMGs. With rare exception, carbine and rifle ammo are only found in longarms. I've listed range tables for the odd handguns like the T/C Encore and Contender and stockless rifles that fire Carbine and Rifle ammo. The handgun chart would also apply to Classic firearms at the GMs option as these were lower velocity and harder to shoot well.

• Light Pistol ammo is low pressure and often found in target and training firearms as well as derringers, inexpensive "Pocket pistols" or novelty guns. All varieties of firearms are chambered in this type of ammunition. Example calibers include: .22LR, .25ACP, and .32 pocket guns.
• Light pistol calibers are 2d4 damage, AP 1. 
• Light pistol ammo range, handgun, 5/10/20
• Light pistol ammo range, longarm, 10/20/40
• Medium Pistol ammunition is the standard for sidearms and sub-machineguns. it is the type of ammo every police officer, security guard and soldiers pistol is chambered in, as well as nearly all SMGs deployed. The most popular calibers in the world are Medium Pistol. Calibers include: 9mm, 40S&W, 38special and Super, etc
• Medium pistol calibers are 2d6 damage, AP 2.
• Classic Medium Pistol Ammo is only AP 1.
• Medium Pistol ammo range, handgun, 10/20/40
• Medium Pistol ammo range, longarm, 12/24/48
• Heavy Pistol ammo is large caliber rounds, often designed before Magnum cartridges for additional terminal effectiveness. Often preferred but more traditional shooters and very common in the Classic period and firearms. Mostly found in pistols and revolvers, lever action rifles and a few SMGs. Example real-world calibers include: .44 Special, 10mm, 45ACP and 'Long Colt', 357 Magnum
• Heavy pistol calibers are 2d6+1 damage, AP 1. 
• Heavy Pistol ammo range, handgun, 10/20/40
• Heavy Pistol ammo range, longarm, 12/24/48
• Magnum ammunition is where the calibers that try to be the biggest and best in a handgun sized package. Often found in revolvers and only rarely adapted to Semi-autos. No Magnum SMG has ever been mass produced. There are some custom rifles in these calibers and SMGs Example calibers include .50 Action Express, .44 Magnum, .500 S&W.
• Magnum Pistol calibers are 2d8 damage, AP 1, limited to an ROF 1. 
• Magnum cartridges and firearms do not exist in Classic settings.
• Magnum Pistol ammo range, handgun, 10/20/40
• Magnum Pistol ammo range, longarm, 12/24/48
• Carbine ammo is also called "intermediate cartridges," and are typical of assault rifles like the AK and M16-style rifles. There are many manually operated longarms in carbine cartridges as well, like the classic 30-30 lever rifles. Handguns in this caliber are often single shot or cut down rifles.
• Carbine ammo is 2d8 damage AP 3, 
• Semiauto Carbines have a ROF of 2.
• Classic Carbine ammo is only AP 2
• Carbine ammo range, handgun, 20/40/80
• Carbine ammo range, longarm, 24/48/96
• Rifle ammo is the full power horse-stopping round exemplified by the .308, 30-06 or 8mm Mauser. Usually found in bolt action rifles, many belt fed medium machine guns and even autoloading combat rifles are built in these calibers as well. There are only a few handguns in these calibers due to their huge size, heavy recoil and weight. They are mostly target and hunting single shot pistols.
• Rifle ammo is 2d8+1 damage, AP4, 
• Semiauto rifles have a ROF of 1.
• Classic Rifle ammo is only AP 3
• Rifle ammo range, handgun, 24/48/96
• Rifle ammo range, longarm, 30/60/120

Rate of Fire Modifications.

Rate of fire is going to be a feature of the firearm. The system has a side rule for semi-auto guns to “Doubletap” to increase damage against a single target, but the trained use of a semi-auto can easily support attacking 2 targets inside of 6 seconds without a penalty. The obvious exclusion of guns with an ROF of 2 and the rules defining ROF 3 as full auto show to me that this was a consideration when they were designing the game. If a character uses both ROF against a single target, use the Doubletap rule. If they split them between targets, use the ROF rules. The Customization mentioned is an optional rule that I'll post later. GMs should feel free to ignore it as it is very much a specialist and cinematic addition.

• Single shot, single action and manually operated firearms have a ROF of 1.
• Pump action, lever action, bolt action firearms are all included.
• All single action revolvers and Derringers are ROF 1. 
• Double action revolvers are ROF 1, except when customized. 
• Magnum caliber semiauto pistols, heavy semiauto rifles and semiauto shotguns (except when customized) are also ROF1.
• Semiauto firearms are typically ROF 2. Pistols, rifles etc.
• Machineguns are ROF 3 and 4. The highest rate of fire guns are 4. 
• Miniguns and futuristic hyper rate of file guns are ROF 5.

BodyCameras

(Note: This article was written in 2016 and missed publication)
I just read the linked article about a low cost solution for police body cameras. I think it merits discussion. On the one hand, dedicated devices are more tamper resistant and can be built with the always-on battery life, ruggedness and simple controls that lend it a long life in the sort of hard use a police officers item can expect. Also, since it has literally no other purpose there is no reason for it to ever not be in place.

On the other hand, a smartphone based system can be cheaper, and always online. You can off-load the storage to prevent tampering and livestream incidents in progress. but at the cost of battery life, probably having to be activated and managed from the touch screen (a huge, fragile, battery waster) and being easily blocked by structures, simple network congestion, airplane mode, or lack of signal. The mounting system shown in the article seems especially subject to being dropped, lost or otherwise disabled.

The advantage of using a phone with its own data capability is clear. A phone is simpler to use than a dedicated, larger device that needs to be plugged in to a dock every night not only to charge, but to offload the camera’s footage to a server.

“VieVu, you would wear it your whole shift, record several aspects of what you were doing, come into the office, plug it in, and then it would download,” Officer Johnny Mathis of the Dos Palos Police Department, told Ars.

“The problems that we had [with a dedicated body camera] was that some officers wouldn’t plug it in, or the connection wasn’t real good, or when you went to use the camera, it was full. This one, as soon as you turn the camera off, it uploads it into the cloud, no problems with being full or anything like that.”

Would a cop fail to ensure their gun was loaded, or that the barrel wasn’t obstructed? Would they drive off without making sure the patrol car had gas? These are a cultural issue with cops using any  excuse to avoid being filmed at work. My solution is 2 fold.

1. A bodycam designed to fit in the officers breast pocket. It has both celluar streaming and onboard fixed storage. It is affixed into the pocket with velcro so as to stay in place during vigorous physical activity. it would have an onboard battery life greater then a shift length, a charging port and battery pack option and a “pause” button for bathroom breaks etc that requires a 3 second push to deactivate the camera, but a mere tap to activate. There would be a light and signal sent when the camera is activated and deactivated.
2. At the end of shift the cameras would be turned into a quartermaster department whose job it is to secure the data, charge and maintain the devices. At the beginning of shift there would be and inspection of the camera and acceptance. Both of these would be systems that have disciplinary reinforcement. If an officer didn’t check they device, discipline. If the quartermaster didn’t archive it right? discipline.

At least that is my starting point.

Restrictions and Machineguns

I agree with restriction creates demand. Especially among contrarian people who figure "Well it's banned, it's gotta be good!" And let's not forget the movies and anime and videogames portraying these awesomely cool guns. Let's get a little deeper though.

The root issue is that raw numbers swell marginal rates. There are not a lot of machinegun harms in the US. Nearly zero with registered machineguns. However, that doesn't mean that if machineguns were made widely available these rates would stay near zero. As the availability and total number of machinegun, especially cheap, shootable machineguns increases, the odds of them being misused increases too. The lack of NFA weapons being used to harm people is evidence that if your gun control is strict enough, it works.

BUT. It also works because semi-auto and even manually operated firearms are 90%+ as effective as machineguns for the vast majority of uses. In many cases they are even preferred to machineguns. As much as I want to flip a switch and dump a mag or 5, or a drum, it's not really worth it to me and nothing in what I want to do with a gun is improved by automatic fire.

Because full auto is cheap. 2 pieces of sheet metal to make most ARs shoot in auto. You can bend a coathanger to create an autosear for an AR. As the video mentions there are other solutions for other guns, and dedicated sub-machineguns are probably the second easiest type of gun to build out of spare steel at Home Depot.  But generally people don't. Why? Because a factory PC9 is more accurate, more reliable, better handling and easier to acquire. Increase that barrier to entry and you can look to the gun markets of Central Europe and South America for your examples, where workshops create sub-machineguns in batches and individuals braze them together from spare parts on their lunch break.

Getting Started in Savage Worlds

A psuedo-review

Savage Worlds is a RPG designed for fun and fast play. The definitive difference is that you advance stats and skills by increasing the value of the die related to the stat or skill. It's almost like White Wolf (or U5D) where each pip is not an additional die, but a better one. The rules are a mix of ideas and seem to be strongly influenced by tabletop wargaming play. Up to 4 Players has a really good primer on the basics in comic form and illustrates a campaign with rules as well.

 There's not much wrong with Savage Worlds' rules, but they doesn't feel cohesive. A well tuned game system scales and is intuitive to the point that a GM or player can guess what the rules are for a new situation. This is not that. While the rules are clearly written, they are disjointed and poorly organized.

There are some thematic issues with it as well. As a pulp rules system, it is subject to all the old stereotypes and prejudices coming through in the games. In the end, this is on the individual GM to solve, but you should be aware that it is shaded to encourage play and characters that have sensibilities set in the 1930s. If the inherent colonialism, classism and bigotry of Steampunk bothers you, this is probably the wrong system for you. Again, a decent GM and good setting will avoid this. But the defaults are Wild West, Pulp Sci-fi, Steampunk and Lovecraftian horror.

To sum up, I'm glad I purchased it, it's a good game for what I'm trying to do, but I can't recommend it unreservedly. It's close to the old White Wolf system in ease of play and character creation, and is much simpler than D20, Shadowrun, Palladium, or GURPS. It is not as tight and easy to play as 5e. If there was a good resource for 5e Modern, I'd have gone with that for my game.

Due to previous experience I've tweaked and modified Savage Worlds, the beginning of which you can see below, and more to come in future Blog Posts.

Examples of What Those Dice Mean:

One of the failings of Savage Worlds is that they don’t provide context for the dice you buy as your attribute or skill. I’ve made this handy chart to act as a guideline to help you in character creation and give context to your stats and skills. Reading the source material ad making some educated guesses from RPGs past, please find below my interpretation of the dice.

Stats:

• D4, low average. You can do stuff related to this stat, but it's hard.
• D6, high average. You are competent in most tasks involving this attribute.
• D8, exceptional. You are noticeably well endowed in this attribute.
• D10, outstanding. You easily accomplish really difficult things related to this attribute.
• D12, Olympic. You are near the top of human ability in this attribute. 
• D12+1 You are a world champion in this attribute.

Skills:

• No skill, you only have common knowledge of this still and will roll the related attribute, often at -2 . The GM may fail attempts if the case is too far from common knowledge.
• D4, you have limited and basic knowledge of this skill. Perhaps it is a hobby or something you've assisted others with.
• D6, you have a professional knowledge on the subject and could hold down an entry level position related to it.
• D8, you have an encyclopedic knowledge and excellent skill in this realm.
• D10, you are an expert in the field
• D12, you are the authority on the subject. 

How Having “No Skill” Works:

By default if you don’t have a skill, you roll the attached attribute at -2. However, if the GM declares that the particular thing you are doing is “Common knowledge” you may roll at the bare stat. Alternately, if the task is too complex, it may fail no matter what. No Skill can be contextual as well. A time traveler from the future will have common knowledge of medieval swords, but the knights of the time will not be able to understand his tablet or blaster. Or in modern times a scroll written in Ancient Babylonian will not be readable to anyone not skilled in Knowledge Ancient Babylonian.

Common Knowledge example:

Rory wants to bandage a wound. He has a bandage and has seen ER, but no Medical or Healing skill. He rolls Smarts with no modifier and on a success, has bandaged the wound.

Default example

Rory wants to drive a car, but has no Drive skill. Using Common Knowledge, he rolls Agility -2 for even the simplest tasks, and the GM will probably narrate all the little things that he’s getting wrong and failing at.

Autofail example

Rory wants to fly a fighter jet but does not have the Flying skill. He climbs into the cockpit, and rolls Smarts. The GM knows that fighter jets are incredibly complex and Rory automatically fails, regardless of the roll, wild die, or raises. A terrible role might be a spectacular failure.

RPG Descriptions are Important

Just read an article about old school D&D having trouble because Assassin and Thief characters would kill or steal from party members. To me that's a failure in GMing and in party cohesion. Sure an assassin is going to kill people, it's in the name. But they aren't crazed murderers killing random or just nearby people. They kill for money or mission. If the GM gives the assassin character a mission to kill another PC that's on the GM for hurting the game. In a very rare instance a GM may try to divide the loyalty or put a character in a position to betray the party. Think of Firefly,  Jayne nearly betrays Mal in the episode with the Fed or when Jayne does betray Mal in the hospital job. But I'd consider that some advanced storytelling that should be limited to players who value the group more than XP or "Just playing my character," excuses. The GM and player of the possible betrayer should monitor the health of the group and be ready to ditch the idea.

Thieves stealing from party members is a similar problem. A thief character should have ample opportunity to steal (and use other roguish talents) in the world without taking from their comrades. Just as an assassin isn't a psycho killer, a thief isn't a kleptomaniac. The thief character should value the party's support more than trinkets and baubles they can get from their purses. A player who ignores this should be addressed by the GM or the group. The GM can reinforce this with "Honor among thieves," and other setting fluff. For example a team of bank robbers have no problem killing cops and stealing from the bank. But wouldn't dare take a dollar more than their share, and would feel bad if they killed a bystander. (See Reservoir Dogs)

The article ends with a different example, in early D&D Barbarians had a rule that awarded them experience for destroying magic items and a class description that they hate magic in all forms. This is game structure that directly opposes Barbarians with wizards, clerics, characters who have leveled into spell-like abilities and everyone else who's carrying a magic weapon or item. Unlike the previous examples a Barbarian character of any alignment would be in character to betray magic using comrades, steal party members expensive and rare magic items and destroy them. Played with restraint and respect this could be role-playing tension. But as a general rule it justifies actions that wreck the game for everyone. Here the game was the problem not the GM.

I feel that the problem is partly one of growing pains, RPGs were changing from wargaming and "murder hobo" hack n' slash to the more storytelling games we have now.  Making these changes reinforced storytelling and was probably the right thing to do in the long run. Now we have a better base to build on. GMs and players are used to diverse parties and are less likely to use their class (or alignment) as justification to damage the game. 

A More Socialist Uber

The Gig Economy

There is a class of app mediated "Gig" employment that leverages the idea of workers owning the means of production to make greater profit with less overhead. They're the media darlings of the mobile web. Uber, Doordash, AirBnB and all of the others where individuals sign up, use their own cares and homes to undercut the prices of taxis and hotels and provide delivery services that the Post Office and UPS can't or won't. These jobs require that the workers provide the labor, cars, insurance etc while the mediating app company takes a cut of every transaction for matching them with customers, building the app, and organizing everything. They also take a cut as profits and maintain ownership of the company. That's the part I would change.

Internet Mediated Cooperative:

As a co-op, this type of app would only take a cut to cover the costs of running the infrastructure that the workers need. Some might be stored to save for emergencies or long term upgrades or other changes that aren't immediate, but the root organization takes no profit.

Ownership shares would be distributed to the workers by a system of either hours worked, money made, or some other proof of work idea. The workers would use their ownership shares to vote about what the company does, like any shareholders. Over time, the ownership percentage of the core infrastructure developing organization would diminish against the number of workers and their efforts. When a worker leaves the organization, the organization buys back their ownership, keeping control of the company with the workers and the ex-worker gets paid out for their work. Alternately, the organization could be strictly non-profit and each worker gets an equal vote. I dislike this solution as it incentives people to sign up for a minimum time and take the vote over.

None of this solves the root problems of our economy and the issues with being an independent contractor. It doesn't solve the problem of people having to provide their own car, insurance, gas, maintenance and the rest. It would be very hard to get such an organization started as Venture Capital would be antithetical to the idea. It would be hard to be competitive with the existing gig apps as they already have the market share. And I don't know if such a co-op ownership scheme would be legal in the stock trading laws. But it's interesting to take these "disruptive" ideas to their open source, cooperative roots.