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