I have had a lot of frustration lately around the topic of walls and borders. In the Libertarian spaces I poke around, there is this general idea that having a wall and enforcing borders is against NAP (Non Aggression Policy). It took me a while to formulate why this is a load of shit, so now I'm going to try to explain.
Let us start by evaluating what is meant by aggression. In the context of NAP, it refers to the initiation or threat of force against an individual or their property. This would be like threatening to jail someone if they do not give up money or taking land from someone, forcing a sale, anything where resistance to the act would result in some form of harm or repercussion. Sounds reasonable so far.
The problem arises around property rights. Assume I own a plot of land. I have more land than I currently use. Someone rolls on up and starts setting up a home on the unused land. Since it is my property, I have the right to remove them from the land I own. Of course I have an option to sell or rent the land, but that does not mean I should or have to. I as an individual doing this would be fine. Even if I threaten them, it is fine because they have already violated my rights by trying to take my land without permission.
So now let us assume we have a community of people. This community of people all own various plots in a region of land. They decide they do not want certain people coming into their region without vetting them to their standards. They even go so far as to deny passage through the region without some form of vetting to ensure their own safety. This is the concept of a country having borders. If someone attempts entry or passage by attempting to circumvent these rules the owners of the land put in place, that is a violation of property rights. The only difference right now is it is private citizens doing this rather than elected officials.
Continuing on with the same idea, the people now create a militia to patrol the land and make sure people everyone has agreed need to be vetted before entry are actually either vetted or not within the region. Are we still good? After all, it is people protecting their private property. I still say yes, this is perfectly fine. People have a right to protect their property, even as a group.
So now the militia finds someone their that should not be. They own no property, which means they are on someone else's property. They refuse to leave, so the militia forces them off private property. We still good? If you think we have gone too far, just remember we are assuming everyone is under a unanimous decision and rather than functioning as an individual they are instead just a group with the same idea helping each other out. If an individual can do it, so can a group all working towards the same goal.
Now imagine that someone in the middle with no bordering land decides that they want to let everyone and anyone in. As a result, an individual decides to trespass to get to their destination. This still violates rights of the other landowners who did not consent to that travel across their land. Is it okay to use force to stop their travel? Sure. It is still a violation of rights and people protecting their own rights. What happens if they make it to the individual within who said it was okay? Well, this is the whole sanctuary city conundrum. If the militia goes onto that person's land to extract the violator and throw him out, are they not in turn violating now two people's rights? Well, the trespasser already violated the rights of others. To allow a person that commits a crime to go free so long as where they stay is okay with it is the same as endorsing the crimes themselves. Upon violating the rights of another person, in my opinion you already forfeited your own rights. In the same turn, to violate the rights of someone else who did not do anything wrong in action does not seem right. We could end up with a group imposing their will over the individual. Some may consider trespassing to not be a big deal, so why pursue it. That sets a precedence of there being a certain condition that could be added to make it okay. Perhaps they murder or rape someone along the way. This creates reactionary laws and conditions that messed up a lot of our judiciary system in the first place. Simple black and white, the person committed a crime and those who were wronged have a right to have it made right to them. So my conclusion is it is still okay to extract the person who trespassed.
After all that, the bordering people and majority of internal supported in the region decide, let's build a wall. If we wall off the region, it will be harder for people trying to trespass to actually trespass. Sounds good, right? Since it is their land, they can build whatever they want. Walls, fences, moats, or a billboard that says "Go away, <derogatory term>!" It is their property, so it is their choice.
The US is similar to this. The difference is the border land and points of entry are government owned, so every citizen in a sense owns it. Right now we have people saying open up all the borders, people saying shut it down, and the majority of people saying we need to reform the entry criteria and evaluate border security. As the majority of the country is not for open borders, it makes sense the borders are not open. To impose the will that they need to be open would be to violate all the stakeholders that disagree and under current contract with how the governments work. True, we never actually agreed to it, but there is a little caveat in law people seem to disregard even though it is pretty much common law as well.
Implied Consent is the idea that you clearly see the requirements for something and by continuing or proceeding, you consent. This is why a place like Disney does not need you to sign an agreement to search you before entering their parks, they have police out front and searching equipment while at the same time you are under no obligation to enter. Implied consent is used quite frequently, like when you are in an area with a sign that says there are security cameras, you are consenting to being recorded. Living in a country falls under pretty much the same idea. As you continue to live here and proceed with life, you are implying consent to the laws of the land. While there may be the case made that it is because there is no where else to go for what you want, that would be like complaining you cannot buy land because all the land is already owned. Touch luck.
This does not mean I think everything is fine and dandy or that we should not fight back against the things we disagree with. This is purely the reason that I think right now the best option is to be diplomatic about things. As it stands now, it seems like the majority at least leans in my direction of enforcing borders to protect private property to some degree. When it rolls in the opposite direction, I will fight it. I just would not claim someone to not be libertarian just because they don't want to check people entering the land or if they want more screening.
My point is, whether I protect my property as an individual or a group, it is still a protection of private property.
Showing posts with label rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rights. Show all posts
January 21, 2020
December 26, 2019
Who is For the Working Class?
Quite often in American Politics, politicians try to pander as being for the "working class." It is one of those strange pieces of the human condition where people latch on to this "us vs them" mentality. Most people fall into all different categories and groups and to varying degrees are either persecuted or praised for that group. Take myself for example, I am white, have Jewish heritage but am Christian, bisexual, in a same sex marriage, conservative, middle-class level income, home owner, dog person, tall (over 6 foot tall), thin...ish, wear glasses, speak English, ignore all the gender stuff but am happy with my anatomy as is, so on and so fourth. For all of those traits mentioned, I have at one point or another been grouped by it and either praised or otherwise. Anything from "it must be nice being tall enough to reach stuff" to being called a k*** by someone I worked with at Wal-Mart as a young adult. I have also heard time and time again of people pandering to most traits for people as a group of "us vs them." Of all of these, classism seems to be this one bastion of "us vs them" that is politically correct enough to be accepted. After all, the rich could simply give up their wealth to be like the rest of us, right?
This is where the term working class is poorly defined. A lot of people work, most people need to work to survive. So who are the working class. Most people like to refer to the working class and blue collar workers almost as synonymous. The problem is that there is such a spread that working class people seem to be fighting against each other, working against each other.
I consider myself working class. I live most of my life paycheck to paycheck, but I still have retirement plans in the works. My husband is not much higher than me on income and he's one of those evil "business owners." I work for a public school system at the moment. If we were not married, we would both be economically on about the same level. My husband's business is a franchise, so he has the name of a big corporation even though right now he just owns one store that is considered small, local, and family owned. Politicians would have people believe there is a distinction with a line drawn.
Most big corporations involve family. They mostly get built from the ground up with hard work and determination. Despite what people may say about "big business," there are always faces and people behind them. Any megalithic name you can think of boils down to people. All the "evils" that they commit are decisions made by people or groups of people.
Who are these working class stiffs being taken advantage of by big business, paving the road to be trodden upon? It is not college kids barely scraping by thinking a degree is their only chance at success while at the same time trying to tear down the people who achieved their goals already. It is not the people sitting on top of an empire built upon their ability to act out a story. It is not the career politicians who took pan-handling to a new level of empty promises we are forced to pay for. It is not big businesses who "stand up" for the "little guys" riding in on their self-righteous horses. It also is not those who work day in and day out, because almost everyone does on one level or another whether it's observed or not.
The "Working Class" is a load of bull shit. Business owners WORK to keep their business profiting. Employees WORK to keep not only themselves and their families surviving, but the place of business they work for because it benefits them with a means to survive. People in other countries work to survive just like us, or in some cases against even harsher odds.
Most of us have the same goals. We want to be successful and happy. We want a good environment that can support all the good things we have and come to expect. We want to live in a world where people around us can be happy along with us. No matter what we do, life is not fair. People get lucky, and some unlucky. We cannot do better if we waste all of our time attacking people for being lucky, or born at a better time for what they had accomplished, or for building something that worked out well. We cannot solve problems by taking from those that have and just giving it to those that do not have. We solve problems by working together, or competing, or even just by trying until something works.
These politicians that say they are for the working class is nothing more than a ploy. People are not your enemy just because they are wealthy and they most certainly are not your friends because they are poor. We have college kids barely getting by wasting their time attacking families living paycheck to paycheck to survive or even attacking the companies that are keeping hundreds and even thousands of people employed so they can survive. I am just so sick and tired of all this class crap and political pandering. Politicians should either actually do something that helps or get out of the way and let people fix their own problems. Preferable, get out of the way.
This is where the term working class is poorly defined. A lot of people work, most people need to work to survive. So who are the working class. Most people like to refer to the working class and blue collar workers almost as synonymous. The problem is that there is such a spread that working class people seem to be fighting against each other, working against each other.
I consider myself working class. I live most of my life paycheck to paycheck, but I still have retirement plans in the works. My husband is not much higher than me on income and he's one of those evil "business owners." I work for a public school system at the moment. If we were not married, we would both be economically on about the same level. My husband's business is a franchise, so he has the name of a big corporation even though right now he just owns one store that is considered small, local, and family owned. Politicians would have people believe there is a distinction with a line drawn.
Most big corporations involve family. They mostly get built from the ground up with hard work and determination. Despite what people may say about "big business," there are always faces and people behind them. Any megalithic name you can think of boils down to people. All the "evils" that they commit are decisions made by people or groups of people.
Who are these working class stiffs being taken advantage of by big business, paving the road to be trodden upon? It is not college kids barely scraping by thinking a degree is their only chance at success while at the same time trying to tear down the people who achieved their goals already. It is not the people sitting on top of an empire built upon their ability to act out a story. It is not the career politicians who took pan-handling to a new level of empty promises we are forced to pay for. It is not big businesses who "stand up" for the "little guys" riding in on their self-righteous horses. It also is not those who work day in and day out, because almost everyone does on one level or another whether it's observed or not.
The "Working Class" is a load of bull shit. Business owners WORK to keep their business profiting. Employees WORK to keep not only themselves and their families surviving, but the place of business they work for because it benefits them with a means to survive. People in other countries work to survive just like us, or in some cases against even harsher odds.
Most of us have the same goals. We want to be successful and happy. We want a good environment that can support all the good things we have and come to expect. We want to live in a world where people around us can be happy along with us. No matter what we do, life is not fair. People get lucky, and some unlucky. We cannot do better if we waste all of our time attacking people for being lucky, or born at a better time for what they had accomplished, or for building something that worked out well. We cannot solve problems by taking from those that have and just giving it to those that do not have. We solve problems by working together, or competing, or even just by trying until something works.
These politicians that say they are for the working class is nothing more than a ploy. People are not your enemy just because they are wealthy and they most certainly are not your friends because they are poor. We have college kids barely getting by wasting their time attacking families living paycheck to paycheck to survive or even attacking the companies that are keeping hundreds and even thousands of people employed so they can survive. I am just so sick and tired of all this class crap and political pandering. Politicians should either actually do something that helps or get out of the way and let people fix their own problems. Preferable, get out of the way.
December 17, 2019
Voter Registration Purges
Living in GA, we had complaints around the past election for Governor. It was claimed that due to purging inactive voters, people were unable to vote around election time. So what really goes on?
After about 3 years a voter is considered inactive. A letter will then be mailed to the last known address. If the user fails to respond in 30 days, they will be removed from the system. To then vote, you need to simply... register. It is all related to laws passed by Democrats in 1993, National Voter Registration Act by Bill Clinton, and in 1997, House Bill 889 signed by Zen Miller with bipartisan support.
So why purge inactive voters? If not an active voter, information may fall out of date. Let's take me for example. I lived in Upstate NY and was a registered voter. I did not actually vote until after I had moved twice, giving no updated information until I planned to vote again which just involved me registering in the area I was living at the time. Later I moved to GA giving no notice or change of address because the only thing that would have done is let junk mail follow me. Once down here I registered to vote, and did. My parents gave me a call to let me know that my name was still active to vote there as well. In the area they live, you do not need to prove who you are to vote and you basically just cross your name off of a list. Someone knowing my name and previous address could simply say they are me, get my name crossed off, and vote. Or even worse, I could have voted twice and I would be surprised if anyone caught it since I live in a different state now. The quicker it gets purged the less likely it is to happen. The difference in GA is you actually need to show an ID to vote. If that is the case, then why purge? Well to put it plainly, your ID is checked by a bunch of older people sitting at a table and no one checks if the ID is real so long as the numbers match. I might not be able to vote in multiple places in the same state, but anyone with a copy of my drivers license and some skill could probably vote for me if I did not go vote.
So the main reason to purge the system after inactivity is to try to reduce voter fraud. Plenty of notice is given and it can help clear out people who move and just simple register elsewhere. It is all part of a fairly archaic system that could use a real proper rework and update, but at the rate things move and to verify security, so on and so forth, it may be a while before that happens. The mechanism is not perfect, but it is far from targeting certain peoples unless the idea is certain groups of people are inclined to vote in rare occurrences with no notice.
Could voter registration purges be used to target specific groups? To some degree, probably. To be honest, that just really sounds like more effort than it would actually be worth. To me, the whole argument against it is about and the dangers make it seem even less effective than gerrymandering, which for reasons that should be obvious does not make a huge impact on things. The fact of the matter is there are variables that are too inconsistent and unpredictable to guarantee anything this way or that.
The best advice I can offer is vote often. There are lots of times local issues get voted on, and it is worth becoming more active in your small local government decisions. I have gone to some local votes with no knowledge of the topic, read the simple information and found issues that were actually things I did have concern over and would want to vote on. So even if you have no idea what the vote is for, it's never to late to form an opinion and make it heard to try to improve what is around you.
After about 3 years a voter is considered inactive. A letter will then be mailed to the last known address. If the user fails to respond in 30 days, they will be removed from the system. To then vote, you need to simply... register. It is all related to laws passed by Democrats in 1993, National Voter Registration Act by Bill Clinton, and in 1997, House Bill 889 signed by Zen Miller with bipartisan support.
So why purge inactive voters? If not an active voter, information may fall out of date. Let's take me for example. I lived in Upstate NY and was a registered voter. I did not actually vote until after I had moved twice, giving no updated information until I planned to vote again which just involved me registering in the area I was living at the time. Later I moved to GA giving no notice or change of address because the only thing that would have done is let junk mail follow me. Once down here I registered to vote, and did. My parents gave me a call to let me know that my name was still active to vote there as well. In the area they live, you do not need to prove who you are to vote and you basically just cross your name off of a list. Someone knowing my name and previous address could simply say they are me, get my name crossed off, and vote. Or even worse, I could have voted twice and I would be surprised if anyone caught it since I live in a different state now. The quicker it gets purged the less likely it is to happen. The difference in GA is you actually need to show an ID to vote. If that is the case, then why purge? Well to put it plainly, your ID is checked by a bunch of older people sitting at a table and no one checks if the ID is real so long as the numbers match. I might not be able to vote in multiple places in the same state, but anyone with a copy of my drivers license and some skill could probably vote for me if I did not go vote.
So the main reason to purge the system after inactivity is to try to reduce voter fraud. Plenty of notice is given and it can help clear out people who move and just simple register elsewhere. It is all part of a fairly archaic system that could use a real proper rework and update, but at the rate things move and to verify security, so on and so forth, it may be a while before that happens. The mechanism is not perfect, but it is far from targeting certain peoples unless the idea is certain groups of people are inclined to vote in rare occurrences with no notice.
Could voter registration purges be used to target specific groups? To some degree, probably. To be honest, that just really sounds like more effort than it would actually be worth. To me, the whole argument against it is about and the dangers make it seem even less effective than gerrymandering, which for reasons that should be obvious does not make a huge impact on things. The fact of the matter is there are variables that are too inconsistent and unpredictable to guarantee anything this way or that.
The best advice I can offer is vote often. There are lots of times local issues get voted on, and it is worth becoming more active in your small local government decisions. I have gone to some local votes with no knowledge of the topic, read the simple information and found issues that were actually things I did have concern over and would want to vote on. So even if you have no idea what the vote is for, it's never to late to form an opinion and make it heard to try to improve what is around you.
December 16, 2019
The Current State of Virginia
I have only been following from afar the news in Virginia about the proposed gun laws and Second Amendment sanctuary cities. Personally, I do not know much about Virginia or its current or past political dealings. From what I understand is that it is primarily Democrat run and now there are a few proposed legislation gearing up for 2020 that would severely damage gun rights. When I say damage gun rights, we are talking about possible waves of confiscation and registration for what are perfectly common use firearms. There have also been threats of the National Guard being called in, sheriffs being removed, and the obvious talk of the Big Igloo aka boogaloo aka a real recreation of events of 1776.
From my understanding, the Democrats want to not only restrict the guns, but also parts, and even militia groups. This is astounding to me, we are a country that was formed and fought for by militia, I should clarify the term militia even back then was used to refer to a civilian formed military group. If you aren't aware, there are still many active militias across the US, and if you want to join one you can just look online for militias in your state or even form your own. Some may wonder why they form, and they all have different reasons. They're not usually all crazy and gearing up for war, but can even be as simple as people maintaining readiness to act in an emergency or disaster. A militia exercises our rights to not only the second amendment, but the right to assembly (peaceful, anyway) in the first amendment. As long as the group is not violent, a militia is covered by the first and second amendments of the US Constitution. So from my understanding, the Virginia government is stepping on both of those rights.
The alarm is real and I don't think people fully understand the gravity of the situation and what it presents. While people focus on the second amendment violations, of which have occurred and people seem to accept some infringement there for whatever reason, they are also stepping on the toes of the first amendment. To then threaten the involvement of the National Guard is elevating a state issue to a federal issue, which shouldn't occur unless there is a federal reason, such as violation of the constitution, in which case the National Guard should be going against the state and not the people. Then you have the state trying to step on the rights of the cities and counties by threatening to remove their elected officials.
What we are witnessing in Virginia is more than the reason for the second amendment. It's the reason we set up so many layers of checks and balances and distribution of power. This was going to happen sooner or later. I do not know if it is better this is happening on a state level as opposed to a federal level. The reason is that I believe this is the kick in the stomach people needed to see exactly what kind of a road they decided to venture down. I just don't know if it is enough to bring that realization to the whole country. This is because people said it was okay to have some restrictions. The Constitution had the line drawn and it got blurred. Now we are heading further and further down a dangerous path.
This isn't about gun rights. This is about all rights. This is about the rights of the individuals, their rights to assemble, their rights to protect themselves, their rights to their property. I hope this is the start of people waking up. I hope this all turns out for the best. I fear it may only be the tip of the iceberg.
From my understanding, the Democrats want to not only restrict the guns, but also parts, and even militia groups. This is astounding to me, we are a country that was formed and fought for by militia, I should clarify the term militia even back then was used to refer to a civilian formed military group. If you aren't aware, there are still many active militias across the US, and if you want to join one you can just look online for militias in your state or even form your own. Some may wonder why they form, and they all have different reasons. They're not usually all crazy and gearing up for war, but can even be as simple as people maintaining readiness to act in an emergency or disaster. A militia exercises our rights to not only the second amendment, but the right to assembly (peaceful, anyway) in the first amendment. As long as the group is not violent, a militia is covered by the first and second amendments of the US Constitution. So from my understanding, the Virginia government is stepping on both of those rights.
The alarm is real and I don't think people fully understand the gravity of the situation and what it presents. While people focus on the second amendment violations, of which have occurred and people seem to accept some infringement there for whatever reason, they are also stepping on the toes of the first amendment. To then threaten the involvement of the National Guard is elevating a state issue to a federal issue, which shouldn't occur unless there is a federal reason, such as violation of the constitution, in which case the National Guard should be going against the state and not the people. Then you have the state trying to step on the rights of the cities and counties by threatening to remove their elected officials.
What we are witnessing in Virginia is more than the reason for the second amendment. It's the reason we set up so many layers of checks and balances and distribution of power. This was going to happen sooner or later. I do not know if it is better this is happening on a state level as opposed to a federal level. The reason is that I believe this is the kick in the stomach people needed to see exactly what kind of a road they decided to venture down. I just don't know if it is enough to bring that realization to the whole country. This is because people said it was okay to have some restrictions. The Constitution had the line drawn and it got blurred. Now we are heading further and further down a dangerous path.
This isn't about gun rights. This is about all rights. This is about the rights of the individuals, their rights to assemble, their rights to protect themselves, their rights to their property. I hope this is the start of people waking up. I hope this all turns out for the best. I fear it may only be the tip of the iceberg.
December 15, 2019
Gun Rights or No
The topic of gun rights should very easily be headed off at the very beginning when the question of do we have a right to private property gets answered. We have a right to private property, guns are property, therefore why would we not have a right to it?
The arguments over restrictions are based around the idea of inherent dangers posed with said property. Examples of this are all over the place like buying a car, heavy machinery, explosives, chemicals, and anything else people see as dangerous. Despite this, some items do not have the same scrutiny. I can harm or kill someone with a baseball bat or a hammer, yet I do not need a background check or an age check to purchase such things. These are glaring inconsistencies that the numbers and stats around should show we should be doing the exact opposite. This is because there are a combination perceived dangers set by information or lack of, and another thing people often overlook that we in the IT world, and people in the business world, know as "risk appetite."
Risk appetite is the amount of risk or inherent danger/uncertainty that is considered acceptable to leave to risk. It is a term I had to become very familiar with in exploring IT security. When considering risk, the potential dangers are presented. We determine which ones are acceptable risks to take with our risk appetite. We can see examples of this in everyday life. Simply driving a car where we know the statistic chances we could be injured, have problems, or even die yet we accept the risk to drive because the benefits of it exceed the risk. When driving we may choose to speed because of our risk appetite, putting aside the dangers or potential ticket as an acceptable risk. Usually once the consequences hit, there is obvious regret because the decision of acceptable risk was made without the apparent glaring consequences we thought we could either ignore or avoid.
In life as individuals we constantly make choice after choice, weighing risks or choosing to ignore them. As a result there are plenty of examples of what can go wrong reported on despite most of the times things turning out okay. People more conscious of things going wrong will see more risk than those exposed to things going just fine without many, if any, consequences. People can live to a ripe old age smoking every day of there life and others may have smoked only a few times and ended up with cancer. With all the potential outcomes, very few things could be considered for certain.
So why would we take the risk if there's even a chance of something going wrong? Because there are also consequences to not doing something. Choosing not to drive a car could cause you to lose out on all the potential. Even more so, simply walking around could cause you to be hit by a car where the person inside the car with all the safety features walks away unscathed. There are many sides to every arguments and every possible decision.
So now the real core of the matter, guns. Personally, I feel no need to make a justification for any type of private property I own. I own a handful of different guns and I have never viewed it as a problem. I have also never had a problem with someone who chooses not to own a gun and if they want to stay away from them I support that and feel everyone who is uncomfortable around a gun should not own one until they can feel comfortable and safe with it. I also have no problem with others owning guns, concealed carrying, or open carrying. My problem never arises with the guns, but the actions people do when they have a gun.
When a person owns a gun, the risk varies depending on the individual. For example, if a person has children they run the risk of accidental discharge or misuse by the child without proper precautions. If a person is reckless, they may cause an accident with the firearm. Risks to people surrounding them are also apparent. Much like walking along a road, the safety of those around the road depend on the drivers as much as those around a gun owner depend on the safety and responsibility of the carriers. Considering how far we have come as a society and how little actually goes wrong compared to how many people are on the planet, I do not see that as problematic. Most areas with a lot of guns are perfectly safe.
So what if we do not have any gun ownership among private citizens, then what? Realistically most places maintain the same safety as before and the government does whatever regardless of potential threats or lack there of to them. There still is plenty fo fear mongering that goes on with both sides of the argument. There are potentials of mass shooters, there are potentials of government taking too much power, we see it happen. The potential on both sides is real and realized around the globe almost every day. So why should we pick a side?
Here's what the real truth is. In our individual lives we will face many individual things that may justify needing a gun or never at all. It is our choice what property we own. Letting the government tell the ultimate authority, the people, what they can and cannot privately own is the danger. It is the slippery slope we are sliding down now. I own a gun because I want to protect myself, my family, and my property from any external threat, people or government. I have a right to own a gun not because I'm over 18, not because I am responsible, but because I can acquire it. Take the sale of guns away, the people will make their own or find a way to get them. By regulating it, the only thing that is done is more criminals are made. We should all accept the risk of freedom and never sacrifice freedom for safety.
The arguments over restrictions are based around the idea of inherent dangers posed with said property. Examples of this are all over the place like buying a car, heavy machinery, explosives, chemicals, and anything else people see as dangerous. Despite this, some items do not have the same scrutiny. I can harm or kill someone with a baseball bat or a hammer, yet I do not need a background check or an age check to purchase such things. These are glaring inconsistencies that the numbers and stats around should show we should be doing the exact opposite. This is because there are a combination perceived dangers set by information or lack of, and another thing people often overlook that we in the IT world, and people in the business world, know as "risk appetite."
Risk appetite is the amount of risk or inherent danger/uncertainty that is considered acceptable to leave to risk. It is a term I had to become very familiar with in exploring IT security. When considering risk, the potential dangers are presented. We determine which ones are acceptable risks to take with our risk appetite. We can see examples of this in everyday life. Simply driving a car where we know the statistic chances we could be injured, have problems, or even die yet we accept the risk to drive because the benefits of it exceed the risk. When driving we may choose to speed because of our risk appetite, putting aside the dangers or potential ticket as an acceptable risk. Usually once the consequences hit, there is obvious regret because the decision of acceptable risk was made without the apparent glaring consequences we thought we could either ignore or avoid.
In life as individuals we constantly make choice after choice, weighing risks or choosing to ignore them. As a result there are plenty of examples of what can go wrong reported on despite most of the times things turning out okay. People more conscious of things going wrong will see more risk than those exposed to things going just fine without many, if any, consequences. People can live to a ripe old age smoking every day of there life and others may have smoked only a few times and ended up with cancer. With all the potential outcomes, very few things could be considered for certain.
So why would we take the risk if there's even a chance of something going wrong? Because there are also consequences to not doing something. Choosing not to drive a car could cause you to lose out on all the potential. Even more so, simply walking around could cause you to be hit by a car where the person inside the car with all the safety features walks away unscathed. There are many sides to every arguments and every possible decision.
So now the real core of the matter, guns. Personally, I feel no need to make a justification for any type of private property I own. I own a handful of different guns and I have never viewed it as a problem. I have also never had a problem with someone who chooses not to own a gun and if they want to stay away from them I support that and feel everyone who is uncomfortable around a gun should not own one until they can feel comfortable and safe with it. I also have no problem with others owning guns, concealed carrying, or open carrying. My problem never arises with the guns, but the actions people do when they have a gun.
When a person owns a gun, the risk varies depending on the individual. For example, if a person has children they run the risk of accidental discharge or misuse by the child without proper precautions. If a person is reckless, they may cause an accident with the firearm. Risks to people surrounding them are also apparent. Much like walking along a road, the safety of those around the road depend on the drivers as much as those around a gun owner depend on the safety and responsibility of the carriers. Considering how far we have come as a society and how little actually goes wrong compared to how many people are on the planet, I do not see that as problematic. Most areas with a lot of guns are perfectly safe.
So what if we do not have any gun ownership among private citizens, then what? Realistically most places maintain the same safety as before and the government does whatever regardless of potential threats or lack there of to them. There still is plenty fo fear mongering that goes on with both sides of the argument. There are potentials of mass shooters, there are potentials of government taking too much power, we see it happen. The potential on both sides is real and realized around the globe almost every day. So why should we pick a side?
Here's what the real truth is. In our individual lives we will face many individual things that may justify needing a gun or never at all. It is our choice what property we own. Letting the government tell the ultimate authority, the people, what they can and cannot privately own is the danger. It is the slippery slope we are sliding down now. I own a gun because I want to protect myself, my family, and my property from any external threat, people or government. I have a right to own a gun not because I'm over 18, not because I am responsible, but because I can acquire it. Take the sale of guns away, the people will make their own or find a way to get them. By regulating it, the only thing that is done is more criminals are made. We should all accept the risk of freedom and never sacrifice freedom for safety.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)