Who Needs Philosophy

I hope you had the time and the inclination to enjoy the transcript at the link I posted.   http://www.tracyfineart.com/usmc/philosophy_who_needs_it.htm

I understand that many do not have the time to focus on such a comprehensive explanation of the topic.

So here's a shorter explanation of what philosophy is and why it's important to you. If this post grabs you, then you will certainly enjoy the time spent in reading the transcript I linked in the earlier post.

If you study sociology or psychology you will find that you need to understand a lot about a more basic field – human anatomy and physiology. As a young man I studied biology. It quickly became clear that a true understanding required knowledge of more basic fields like chemistry and physics. If you study chemistry and physics, you will soon find that there is another field you must study.

This is how acquiring knowledge works – each field builds on others. The most important truth about human knowledge is that it is all integrated, that is, that all human knowledge is interdependent.

This integration and interdependence point back to the field of philosophy. That is, (in this context) the study of those facts of existence and of human ways of thinking that are common to all other areas of knowledge.

Philosophy as a field of study has several topic-areas. Metaphysics is the study of the nature of existence and epistemology is the study of valid ways of thinking. I put these two, most basic areas, together because in the historic study of these ideas, a major confusion has existed between the “what is,” and the “how do we know it.” More on this in a later post. (This is a critical point you should attempt to remember in future posts, it is perhaps the most important issue underpinning modern motivations in ethical and political decisions).

If you are not going to engage in a comprehensive study of philosophy, an understanding of its basic areas of inquiry is best described in questions. “What do we know and how do we know it?”

This is the point at which it becomes clear that philosophy is important to you, whether you study it or not. The study of existence (metaphysics) and human thinking (epistemology) is the basis of the next two areas of philosophical study – ethics and politics.

Now STOP! This is the point of this essay. You may not have studied metaphysics and epistemology, but your teachers, professors, politicians, news media editors, religious, and social leaders have all studied them. When they make pronouncements in the areas of ethics and politics, it is based on their understanding of all of these areas of philosophy – metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and politics.

These people make decisions that effect you and those decisions are based on things they learn studying philosophy. If you know nothing of philosophy, then you are outside of the loop in terms of understanding the nature of the decisions made by leaders in your community and your country.

Over the next several months and perhaps years, I will dissect these ideas that are basic to ethics and politics – like physics or chemistry might be the basis of some idea in biology. I will tell you what is behind a political opinion and what is the history of thought on the basics. I hope you will comment. Should I continue?

Sinkholes & Georgia Red-Clay

SURFACE SINKHOLES AND GEORGIA RED-CLAY

Mom and Dad allowed me to plant a small vegetable garden when I was about age 10. This small, backyard plot of green peppers and tomatoes was a lot of work and produced almost nothing for the trouble, but I got some exercise, some experience in taking responsibility, and I read a few kid's books on basic gardening. What I remember most was getting up before 7am during summer vacation to do the watering. If I had known about the adult world of watering restrictions during droughts, before I turned the first spade of dirt over, I probably would have chosen a different summer project.

Forty-seven years later I am again experiencing the visceral, primordial, earthy desire to produce my own food. I tried hunting in my 20's and 30's, and though I enjoyed the time in the forest watching Bambi from a tree stand, when, after 8 years of trying, I finally killed her, I never tried again. I like meat, but I buy it at Walmart. However, I think I can remove a green bean from it's plant with little remorse.

So, Lois and I bought an acre with a small manufactured home in northeast Georgia and I got to work improving the soil. The county extension web site made it clear that the Georgia, red-clay, common to our new home was too acidic and lacked organic material. No surprise there – even I knew good farming soil should be black – that's what I thought.

The front third of the single acre property is cleared, with a weedy lawn, several dogwoods in the front, the house, and then a small backyard. The double lot slopes from the dirt road, under the house, and then the back two-thirds of the double lot is wooded so thick you can't walk through it in the summer. Not brambles and vines, but thick with the offspring of large oaks, beech, and sweet gum thickly mixed with some kind of long-needle pine.

I hacked my way through this wall of biomass, thinking that perhaps the Georgia red-clay had better nutrient qualities than the county extention service was aware of. Our lot is on a slope that starts somewhere across the road, and ends at our back property line which is in the center of a creek bed that feeds into Gumlog Creek. Gumlog Creek is flooded by the damming of the Savannah River at Hartwell Georgia, creating Lake Hartwell.

Our property would be worth a lot of money if, as the original land speculators concluded, the flooding of this Army Corps of Engineer's dam project had traveled up the usually dry creek bed at the back of our property. Well, their hydrolic miscalculation was our gain. The cost of our rural, wooded acre with small manufactured home is about the same as the cost of the land under my brother's driveway in Massachusetts.

Well, I fought my way through the lush vegitation to actually see the back line of our property in the middle of this creek bed. And, it was pretty cool when I got there. The vegitation opened up and the Georgia red-clay gave way to a beautiful, sandy, floor to this creek bed draw that was only about 100 yards from the lake. I immediately bought an electric chain saw with the idea that I would turn this dense, impenetrable two-thirds of our property into a paradise. Cut down all the baby trees and make paths that wander through the dozen or two mature trees existing in the space down to the beautiful sandy creek bed that will have a rushing stream in the spring.

Of course, I neglected to consider how and where I would haul these (not so little now) baby trees. And, Oh, there are actually greenbriar vines entangled in each of these baby trees. I really like the dense, thick, wild feel of our back property.

****************************************

The adventure to the back line of the property revealed a couple of other interesting facts. Why, in the middle of all this Georgia red-clay, was there so much sand in the creek bed? I figured out the answer to this question while mowing the front lawn one day.

We moved in, in August. Buy November, I decided I was not going to spend the time and money mowing the lawn and managing the weeds. We lived in the county – outside the city regulations – the dog could run around off the leash and I didn't have to mow the lawn. In fact, when we moved in, our lawn was the only one in the sparcely inhabited neighborhood that was maintained and cut. Having some biological knowledge, I thought – MEADOW! I got on-line and ordered local wildflower seeds. Bought some Round-up, killed the weeds, and spread the natural, ecologically sensative mix over my dead lawn.

Well, the early results say that the idea might actually work. But, the extra attention I had to apply to get the job done, revealed another fun geologic fact. Remember the sand in the creek bed? Well, where do you suppose it came from? Yes, the Georgia red-clay on our sloping double lot is infiltrated with sand deposits. Over the years the water leaching down the slope has eroded these deposits that now sit, so pretty, in the creek bed.

So I'm sowing the local wildflower seeds on the front lawn and I notice depressions and then an actual hole. The holes about the size of a baseball and a flashlight reveals that the ground underneath is open about the size of a bathtub. This is when I notice the depressions in the lawn above the bathtubs. We've got ….................sinkholes. Check the life insurance and call the kids.

Well, not to worry. There's only a couple and the neighbors say you wait for them to fall in and then get a load of fill. Better idea. The cost of a fruit tree with a big root ball, plus the cost of a half dozen bags of topsoil from Home Depot, is way less than the cost of a dump truck load of fill.

So, no landscaping, just the wilderness luck of the draw. Get a sink-hole, plant a tree. I don't care what it looks like and my wild meadow lawn will eventually be so beautiful that no one will notice the lack of symmetry in the trees.

Also, 6 months after putting lime down to increase the soil Ph and adding a little black topsoil, the soil is great. Every time I plant something, I dig up enough earthworms to go fishing and there's all kinds of insects imbedded in the soil too.

Damn, I better by some termite spray and get under the house.

ENJOY LIFE WITH REASON, JACK

TAXATION AND MORALITY

INTRODUCTION

I attended college in the era that coincided with the end of the Vietnam War, Watergate, and the fall of Richard Nixon – a time when Chevy Chase was mocking Gerald Ford by doing dramatic falls on Saturday Night Live. I remember many nights in the lounge on the 13^th floor of my dormitory at Boston University. We discussed politics late into the night – abortion, federal debt, and the military/industrial complex. The liberal students ranted against war and poverty, while the conservative ones complained about welfare and government spending. I had lots of opinions and no sense.

These types of eventually alcohol-induced, late night discussions continued in graduate school. Much was the same - the topics, the liberal and conservative sides - but now we were gathered in a professor's home. We argued mainly about how government should spend tax money because all these guys and gals were doing research funded by government grants.

At some point I had an insight. We always debated the ethics of government spending but never even considered the necessary first step, the generation of the wealth before it is collected and re-distributed. Before you can debate whether it is right or wrong to give funds to a single mother, abandoned by an irresponsible biological father, or to a farmer not to grow a crop, perhaps you might ask where the funds came from. Government funds are not a natural resource, someone has to create the value, the wealth, before it can be distributed. I had been reading a lot of Ayn Rand at the time, so I'm sure that's where the idea came from.

So I started thinking that perhaps the debate about how government spent money, while important, was not as important as asking how that wealth is acquired. “Well it's taxes,” you say – yes, I know, but what is the nature and ethics of that system? I began to wonder if the system used to fund government was, at it's core, immoral; but accepted by all and never questioned, and if that is so, what does it do to the moral foundation of our cultural.

I must admit a prejudice – when I was younger I believed the government spent money on a lot of stuff they shouldn't, but it was the giving of money to people who produced nothing that got me thinking. NASA got funds I didn't agree with, but they did some great things. Some poor people got funds for doing nothing, some got money because their bad decisions had put them in dire straights, and that just didn't seem right. That was back when healthy, single men, and drug addicts were on disability or welfare - it's more restrictive today.  Hey, I have nothing against poor people, in fact, I'm one of them now and it's in part due to my bad decisions. Anyway, this is what got me thinking about the income side, rather than the expense side of the government financial equation.

For the last 30 years I've been bringing up an odd point in these night-time discussions. “Well, wait a minute, doesn't the money for that government program come from taxes, and isn't that like stealing?” At this point I am usually dismissed as a wacko, anarchist.

If you have read any of my previous essays, you know you have to put up with a lot of ground work before I get to the point. That's because, as you may also have determined, I attempt to do what I call, “argue from the essentials.” Complex ideas are based on more basic ideas. In order to argue from essentials your readers must know how you define the words, phrases, and concepts you will use. To do otherwise is an insult to serious readers and a fall into the labyrinth of current political debate based on opinions and sound bights.

The hallmark of political discourse today is vague, undefined positions based on feelings. Validity seems to be measured not by or with reason, but solely on the basis of the speaker/author not receiving any benefit from the position. Today, as long as my opinion benefits people who have less than I do, I'm safe.

Not here. We will first set the stage – that is, I will define what I believe the underlying principles to be. As in previous essays, I don't want your agreement, I want you to use your reason. But notice how little space is given to the topic subject and then ask yourself why.

HUMAN LIFE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Evolution has created countless numbers and unimaginably intricate strategies for living organisms to exploit their environments, thrive, and reproduce similar offspring. Each living thing has an identity, a set of facts that is true and helps them survive. The definition of each living thing is usually composed of the characteristic that is common to their group and the specific adaptation that separates them from all the rest.

The definition of a human being is, “an animal with the capacity to reason.” Life is the most fundamental choice and reason is the mechanism we use when we make that choice. To live as a human you must use your reason, exist by the efforts of others, or die. I had a friend disagree in a discussion the other day. He said, “I don't think that reason is man's means of survival, because I don't know if reason is valid.” My position is that if you believe your mind is not valid, “How Do You Know That?” See the contradiction? Your own mind is all you have to work with - that's why I don't ask you to agree with me, but instead to use my ideas as a motivation to think on your own.

In order to sustain your life you must do two things. First, because we live in communities, you must grant others the right to their lives in order that you may claim the right to yours. Second, you must engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action. These actions produce the substances that will sustain your life – crops grown, meat hunted, or time, labor, and knowledge traded for wages. This wealth you create is used to continue your life, directly or by voluntary trade with others. If you accept this explanation of “right to life,” which I believe is an axiom, you must then accept that each human also has a right to the sole decision and control of the disposition of the wealth they create because it is used to sustain their life.

What if I espoused the position that a human being has a right to all but 20% of their effort, and therefore, to only 80% of their life. Sounds like feudalism. How about a 30/70 split, or maybe only 30% on efforts that produce wealth above what I decide is a reasonable amount to sustain life, or maybe you take the position that a government only has a right to take 15% of your effort. If you want to argue about the specific percent, you don't get it. Once you said it was O. K. to steal the work of others, and then left the specifics of moral amounts to the judgment of a bunch of career politicians, you abdicated your right to moral judgment.

Do you see it? If you have a right to life, then you must have a right to the products of your efforts. It doesn't matter if you live alone on a desert island, with a small group, or in a geo-political space with large numbers of people like a city, state, or country. It is fundamentally wrong to take the value created by others because property rights are derived from the right to life that you expect for yourself. This is not opinion but a recognition of the identities of the entities involved. If you limit the right to property, you limit the right to life. The right to human life logically presupposes the right to personal property. You can't have one without the other. Do you want to live in a world where your right to life is based on my opinion? NO, so reason and look for the truth. Rights are not based on percentages, the nature of the concept is absolute.  Today, in America, like the time before The Emancipation Proclamation (and after for Blacks), we live in a social situation in which the "right to life" is conditional - it is not absolute.

MORALITY AND GROUP DECISIONS

People who do not accept or understand the nature of what it is to be human may not create wealth, but instead, will spend their efforts trying to confiscate the wealth created by others. This is a pre-human, pre-reason, evolutionary strategy for survival. This strategy continued through human history for a depressingly long period of time - most ancient human communities and through the middle-ages.  No individual or group can benefit long-term from this strategy, because you can't voluntarily trade your productive efforts with a thief. The thief benefits in the short-term, but not overall in his life as a human being. The thief will eventually fail, he is the aberration, scorned by all reasonable people, be he a Vandal, a bad English Earl, or Bernie Madoff.

 

Human groups can reason and pass on information to the next generation - this is the basis of culture.  This unique ability has given rise to a process that parallels natural selection and biological evolution.  It's called cultural evolution.  Human populations institute social systems based upon what has worked and these systems are passed to future generations and modified based on changes to their environment.  When a community chooses the right path, they pass on their genes and ideas to a larger next generation.  If they're wrong they reproduce less or die out.

The most successful human communities have been composed of people who decided to institute an organization called government. The primary purpose of this organization is to prevent or punish those individuals who seek to confiscate wealth rather than produce it, successfully supporting the unique human survival technique, reason instead of violence. We pool our resources and use them to pay for protection from people who institute force or fraud. 

"Hey John, if you and I and the rest of the guys give a few bushels of wheat and some deer meat to Brutus over there, he's agreed to bash in the head of that jerk, Magnus. You know, the big guy whose been bullying us to have his way with our wives and our food stores."

With this restriction on the use of force or fraud, communities flourished. Over time they blossom and many individuals accumulate more wealth than they can consume in their natural lives or the lives of their decendants. Then the Enlightenment comes along and reasonable people attempt to create equality of opportunity through liberty. 

Those that prosper far above their needs now wonder (under the influence of organized religion) what to do with this excess production, some migrate to the governing class, and the problems begin if the controlling republican document (a constitution) is not specific enough in its limitations on majority rule. Then the institution we create to protect us from the thief, itself becomes the thief, because a majority vote decides it is O. K. to take the value created by one person and use it to benefit another, just like feudalism.

Most of the voting politicians, by this time, are of the class that has more than they need and is motivated to do great philanthropy. The basis of morality becomes the assistance to people with less; in our town, our country, and eventually on the planet. Politicians are willing to give up a significant percent of their wealth, so how could the general population object to giving up a much smaller percent.  That is what happens when you give up ethics in favor of egalitarianism. That is taxation and that is theft. You agreed it was O.K. to steal and now your elected representatives will expand the permission to cover anything they want.  If it's O.K. to steal, then it's O.K. to steal more, or go into multi-generational debt, stealing from our grandbabies. Now it's O.K. to lose the lives of young Americans in a war whose winning will give little or no benefit to our citizens. You ask, "what war do you mean?"  I say pick one in the last 50+ years. See how a basic mistake in ethics can explode.  Now back to the topic, sorry.

Many religious tenets teach the wealthy to feel guilty for the prosperity they have achieved, when so many others have been left behind. This idea had validity in most ancient communities and in every historic expression of feudalism, because the wealth was created by the use of force or fraud. But at some time after the Enlightenment period the playing field changed. There were still lots of flaws and contradictions, but the American experiment at least aspired to achieve “equality of opportunity.” True liberty didn't happen and maybe movers and shakers became impatient, because somewhere along the way, and perhaps because some people start out with more capital or other resources, the desire changed to “equality of results;” as if life was a race with only so many winning prizes. This view of life sees wealth as a pie with only so many pieces. This view never thinks of baking another pie.

Human reason, abstraction and conceptualization, can make new connections among seemingly unrelated facts - creating steam and steel, computer and tortilla chips, discovering big bangs and black holes, and the human genome. If only our American ancestors had continued to fight for liberty and been patient - it must have been hard to be patient while some robber barons were using access to government to amass fortunes. Enlightenment ideas didn't prevent people from attempting to change outcomes by influencing government (Oh, there's another essay.)

Over time, an increasing majority begins to accept the idea of wealth redistribution. But what about the basic morality, what about the underlying ethical principles, what about the nature and truth of humanity? Majority rule is not a substitute for reason, liberty, or justice. An idea does not become true or ethical because a large enough number of people say it is so.

There is a flaw in human nature that is inconsistent with the miracle of capitalism - it is a flaw that was exposed in times after the Industrial Revolution and is still seen today in a limited way based on the extent that free markets still attempt to function. 

Free markets require time for the billions of decisions from buyers and sellers to establish recognizable patterns that motivate the participants to act in one way or another, combining the desires of all into a reasonable policy. This time lapse is good for the flow of decision making, but it has aggravated policymakers on many occasions. 

You see, it is much quicker to pass a law to achieve a result that may be desired and could have been achieved over time through markets. But, decisions imposed by career politicians are motivated by considerations the markets would not use - and so political solutions are usually inferior in THE LONG-TERM. You get what you desire in the short-term, but then the long-term consequences raise their ugly heads. The most common long-term "ugly head" is the breakdown in the moral fiber of the community that resulted from the moral standards that were surrendered to achieve the short-term result.

This or that social problem or economic crisis is so important, that we should take more from those who we decide can afford it, or take more from the next generation's, yet-to-be produced, efforts, through debt. You know what, we don't have the right - and because we all know it and allow it anyway, the moral fiber streches.  When will it break?  Now will you take the time to think about it?

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

A desire to live is not enough to sustain life. It requires self-generated and self-sustained action. If I believe in my life and in morality, then the fact that my neighbor started out with more than me, for whatever reason, is irrelevant to my desires and plans for the support of my own life. It's wrong for me to sneak over and take part of what he created for his own support. It's also wrong to do the same thing with a group of like minded people in a gang or in a democracy. Immoral behavior doesn't become moral because of the number of thieves involved.

POSTSCRPIT

In my final read-through of this article, there were two obvious comments that occurred to me. I am so convinced readers will draw the same conclusions, I thought I would address them in this postscript.

The first question is, “but Jack, what about the children, the disabled, etc” (or some variation of this idea). My answer is that this is not an article about the support of sub-classes in society, it's an article about the morality of expropriating the value created by one person for any other use a majority thinks is more important. I think you must have thought so little of this idea that you changed the subject. However, if you, and I, and other caring, like-minded people want to get together to figure out a solution for the problems of people who may not be able to support themselves, I'm all for it, let's talk. I and many others will contribute, just don't ask me to steal from other people to fund it.

The other question is, “O.K. Jack, if I accept your argument for government only being involved in those functions that derive from the nature of humans, still, how will we pay for it?” Another good question that is not the subject of this article. There are lots of ideas out there for funding the proper roles of government, ideas that don't include stealing from the citizens. However, none of these ideas include the biggest theft of all – that is, going into so much debt that you are, in fact, now stealing from future generations. No reasonable funding idea will include consuming more than a nation can possibly produce in a generation or two. The present system and sentiment reminds me of the story about the emperor's new cloths. As long as we don't recognize the truth, we are protected from it. Perhaps, but not your grandchildren.

So, perhaps, there is no easy political solution. GEE WHIZ, YA THINK SO? Politics is not a basis or a primary for anything. Politics and political decisions are based on the ethical ideas that the governed community accepts, or more often, will tolerate without ever having considered them.

You want to change things for the better – you must think and encourage others to do the same.  But, Jack "you didn't tell us how to solve the problem?" 

Yes I did.  Obama and Romney want to tell you what to do, what to think, but that won't solve the problem. The solution is for you to think in terms of essentials - about the underlying principles that are too esoteric or philosophical for the practically minded decision makers. Did you notice how little time I spent discussing taxation in this article about the morality of taxation?  "Philosophy, Who Needs It?"  You want to live as a human being, then you do?

Liberty does not require you to agree with all or any ideas except the prohibition on the use of force and fraud. Humanity only requires that you think.

Now go make your loved-one a sandwich.

THE BASIS OF DIVERSITY

EVOLUTION – THE CYCLE OF LIFE OVER TIME

INTRODUCTION

This essay was motivated by my desire to establish a basis for ethics – the nature of humans should inform ethics - and by my recent awareness of a Texas School board that has successfully denied students the opportunity to study evolution in high school science classes.

I like to argue from essentials. Changing people's minds by having them accept your opinion is a meaningless interaction for both parties. Much better to get to the essentials upon which your opinions are based, so that listeners or readers can use the facts to reason and draw their own conclusions. This requires that you define the basic identities of the existents used in your argument. You may have noticed in previous blogs, and will continue to see in future essays, that at some point in the writing, I define a human being as a “rational animal.” I believe this fact must be the basis of ethics – morality comes from truth and truth comes from understanding the nature of the entities involved. I have argued that relationships, laws, government, etc. should be based on that special capacity, reason, because it is the essence of our nature. My belief that reason should be the basis of ethics is founded in an even more basic idea. The nature of life, the reason for the incredible diversity of life, and the source of the unique human survival mechanism of reason is evolution. Such a simple word, but what an incredible process.

I am in awe of the biological process that led to this unique human ability, so, I thought it would be a good idea to write an essay about the process of evolution and it's engine, natural selection. The ability to reason exists because an even more incredible process led to it. As soon as chemicals came together on earth in a way that they could self-generate copies of themselves, the universe changed – it required a solvent, water; the building blocks of carbon and hydrogen; and some easily reactive elements like oxygen and nitrogen. You think the Big Bang is cool, you think Black Holes are the bee's knees – evolution of species through natural selection is even more cool because you can understand it without knowing physics or calculus. I hope at the end of this essay you will agree that Darwin and his colleagues are the modern equivalent of Galileo.

MY PERSONAL JOURNEY

The reasons that people do not accept evolution as fact are numerous, and I think this doubt is reasonable. If my parents had warned me about the godless ideas of evolution, I would have found the whole discussion comical, based on how it was presented to me.

Darwin's ideas were introduced to me as a sophomore at Cardinal Spellman High School. It seemed like interesting and curious nonsense. The emphasis was not on chemistry or genetics because there was not enough time to cover those basic elements first. Instead, we were asked to consider the idea that man descended from apes with little or no discussion of DNA, reproduction, or protein synthesis. I thought Darwin's finches made a cute story that could be explained many different ways. I agreed with creationists, that the archaeological discoveries of pre-human hominids didn't necessarily support evolutionary theory. It could be that totally different animals, similar to humans, existed and became extinct.

I studied biology and genetics in college and began to reconsider my position. Then in grad school I read extensively on the philosophy of science and the link between biochemistry and evolution. I learned that the proof of evolutionary theory, required way more knowledge than I got in high school or college. It required knowledge of the validity of inductive vs. deductive reasoning, and a much deeper understanding of reproductive biology. I began to accept it and years later I was vindicated by discoveries in genetics and molecular biology.

HISTORY

The idea that living species might change form through successive reproductive generations based on changes in their environment has been around, off and on, since before Socrates. In the 5^th and 4^th centuries BC, the Greek philosopher, Anaximander, and the Chinese Taoist philosopher, Chuang Tze, both speculated that species they saw in their time, might have developed from older forms. In the 4^th century AD, the Greek bishop, Augustine of Hippo, cautioned that the Genesis story of creation should not be taken literally because it appeared that life forms had transformed over time. Even Thomas Aquinas said in the 13^th century, that scripture should not be taken literally when the facts of natural science disputed it.

In the 19^th century, an Augustinian friar would find an underlying truth about reproductive biology without even knowing it. Gregor Mendel used discernible characteristics in pea plants to show regular and repeatable patterns of inheritance. He didn't know it, but his data proved that the structural basis of inheritance, the chromosomes, came in pairs, one from each parent In the 20^th century the independent discovery of these same patterns led to the modern science of genetics.

In the mid-1800's Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace, independently arrived at the conclusion that life forms changed over long periods of time based on the interaction between reproductive variation and environment, and that this process could account for the incredible diversity of species, both alive and extinct. In 1953, Watson and Crick published their discovery of the structure of the DNA molecule. Later, the first draft results of the Human Genome Project were released in 2000. We can now map the genetic structure of living things. In 2009 the Vatican announced that Darwin's theory was not in conflict with Catholic dogma and was in fact the culmination of the thoughts of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas.

The truth is that with the chemistry of life totally revealed, there is no longer any question. Life began with a simple chemical replication of molecules . This replication is the first definition of life. Life is self-generated and self-sustained action that can make copies of itself. Once the replication process exists, there is an incredible engine for diversity in life forms based on adaptation to different and changing environments. Not within an individual, but within a reproducing population of living organisms.

The truth of evolution is not revealed in a study of evolution. Like many ideas in science, understanding requires knowledge of the underlying principles that direct the process. Those ideas are biochemistry, genetics and natural selection.

GENETICS AND BIOCHEMISTRY

Each living cell has a number of pairs of chromosomes, 23 pairs in humans. The backbone of each chromosome is a long molecular chain called DNA. Each cell's set of chromosomes is the complete library of the organism. The DNA strand is surrounded by proteins that expose or hide parts of the strand along its length so that a cell doesn't make nerve tissue if it's located in a muscle, etc.

To think about a DNA molecule, picture a flexible ladder. You grab one end and a friend grabs the other and you twist in opposite spin directions. The uprights are attracted because four chemicals, called base pairs, make up the rungs of the ladder and fit together spatially and magnetically. Adenine (A) matches up with Thymine (T), and Guanine (G) matches up with Cytosine (c). The strand will then twist on the twists based on the positive and negative fields on the outer surface – it twists upon twists in a predictable way because of attraction like a magnet.

Along the ladder uprights, the order of the chemicals – A, T, G, and C - determine everything that you are because they determine the synthesis of proteins in your body. The only exception in humans is the content of your thinking, everything else is determined by the order of the base pairs.

AACTCGGATCA makes one protein – ATCGCGGTAAGAGACATA makes another. If you have studied computer theory you should not be surprised that all of biology is based on a pair of pairs – binary upon binary.

When it's time to go to work, the twists unwind and the uprights of the ladder separate through the influence of a chemical called an enzyme. Each half of the strand has now exposed it's side of the base pair (A, T, G, and C) to connect with something else. If the DNA is getting ready for the cell to reproduce (split into two) each strand attracts the molecules necessary to make it whole again in the same sequence as the original. Once everything is doubled, the chromosomes and half the cell contents migrate to the sides and split into two new cells. Now you have two skin, muscle, or nerve cells.

If they are reproductive cells, they do what was just described, but then the re-formed and paired chromosomes separate in the male and the female (in humans 23 identical pairs or 46 chromosomes split, with 23 individuals each moving into a new split cell). Now each reproductive cell, sperm and egg for example, have half the DNA content (23 individual chromosomes in humans) so they can combine with the opposite sex cell to create a whole embryo (46 total comprised of 23 pairs). In humans it would go from 23 pairs to 46 pairs, cell separation, each back to 23 pairs, split into two sex cells of 23 singles each, and finally conception back to 23 pairs.

I have read dozens of author's descriptions of this process and never understood it. I only got it right when I sat down with a piece of paper and worked out the process visually. I did this the first time I had to teach it to a class and didn't want to look like a fool when they asked questions. It's complicated – no wonder the Baptist minister doesn't get it.

Between cycles of reproducing new cells, the DNA splits in the same way, but now gets ready to manufacture proteins – skin, bone, muscle, etc. Now the split and exposed DNA strand, with its A, T, G, and C sticking out, attracts molecules that fit and form a strand of a new molecule called RNA. This RNA has a repetitive base sequence like DNA, The RNA travels to a factory in the cell called a ribosome. In the ribosome, amino acids that fit in space and magnetism line up along the RNA strand to make proteins.

Is that amazing or what? The same set of molecules makes more cells, is the basis of reproduction and inheritance, and makes all the tissues in the organism through protein synthesis. Because this same set of molecules is responsible for all three processes, protein synthesis, cell divisions, and organism reproduction, the blueprints of protein synthesis and cell division are inherited through reproduction. What a system!!!

Yea it was an intense explanation of genetics, reproduction, and protein synthesis, but if you read through it a second time, slowly, it's understandable, though not simple. So, don't think as harshly about religious people who disagree; this is “rocket science.” Can you see why the deacon of a Baptist Church, an educated man or woman, sitting on the Austin, TX school board would want to make sure that creationism is presented along with evolution? He's wrong, but his prejudice is never going to allow him to waste the amount of time necessary to understand the chemistry of life, the basis of evolution. He/She thinks evolution has to do with archeology and human relationship with apes. Theologians in the 17^th century didn't have the mathematics or physics knowledge to follow Galileo either.

NATURAL SELECTION

Now it gets really interesting. You have the basic biochemical and genetic facts necessary to follow the evolution argument. This is the original inductive argument proposed by Darwin, Wallace, and others with some help from more recent discoveries.

Living organisms produce more offspring than could possibly be supported in the habitat they occupy. This hopefully insures that some will live to reproduce and the excess reproductive energy provides food for other organisms.

During reproduction, the chromosome pairs separate, duplicate, and then match up with the set coming from the other parent. Variation comes from the two distinct parents, but also from another mechanism. During this process there are lots of opportunities for the sequence (the order) of chemicals (remember A, T, G, and C that make proteins) to change from the original sequence in the DNA of the parents. These unexpected changes are called mutations. Mutations also occur in other ways.

Mutations may screw up the chemical and magnetic physical structure of the DNA or result in an order of A, T, G, and C that result in a lethal protein. So, most mutations are never seen because the change is so dramatic that the offspring is either not conceived or not born. Lesser mutations result in the diversity in the look and function of offspring that we can study because their proteins are slightly different. Maybe it's a difference in fur color, bill length, sexual desire, or another instinctive behavior; the possibilities are almost endless.

So, genetic diversity is a byproduct of reproduction. Some offspring will be better suited to their environment and will then be more likely to live and reproduce in the next generation. The change could be metabolic, physical appearance, or behavioral, and if it makes the organism more successful, adapted to it's environment, you get more babies. Successive generations will be just as diverse around an earlier change and just as subject to survival pressure. After many generations, a diverging strain becomes so different that it can't or simply does not mate with the original population – a new species is born.

If a species is dark with soft teeth, but the environment changes, or the population moves to exploit new habitat, and the new circumstance favors lighter color to fool predator and stronger teeth to exploit a thicker nut food source, then that part of the population that more closely approximates the requirements will be more likely to live, reproduce, and pass on their unique genetic sequence. This leads to a modified protein synthesis, that favors lighter color and stronger teeth, in a larger and larger segment of the population. It's so simple and so complex.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The scientists who possess all the knowledge of biochemistry, genetics, and reproductive and population biology are busy studying their disciplines. Most have no time or interest in appearing before a local Texas school board. The few who do, are of course not given the time and attention that is required to explain the basis of evolution.

Today we can map genetic anomalies at the molecular level over time. We can say that the changes that occurred and allowed upright posture happened at this point. We can look at the DNA in a part of the cell called a mitochondria and know that an organism that lived during a certain time became the progenitor of both apes and proto-humans. We didn't descend from apes. We descended from some more primitive and now extinct form that also gave rise to apes.

It is a common mistake to assume that evolution has a goal. It seems like evolution has been directing life toward the ultimate organism, a human being. No, we are just one of many success stories in the random lottery that tries to fit forms to their environment. While we have been evolving, so have countless other forms that fit like a glove into their own niche.

Once you take the time to study the underlying science that coalesces to form evolutionary theory, you learn that it is more amazing than you thought. Life uses it's chemical make up, the biological link to the environment, and population biology to support itself and to develop new life forms.

Some scientific theories involve subject and content that occur over long periods of time, or out of human perception in time or space. For this reason, these ideas cannot be proven like a mathematical equation. The idea of a paradigm, in part, recognizes the validity of inductive reasoning. We cannot prove this theory deductively, but the amount of inductive process applied to the theory is so overwhelming, that we accept it as the standard of inquiry. Newtonian physics developed in the same way. Einstein's theories didn't invalidate Newton, they added information to it. The historic inquiry into life's diversity and the current biochemical discoveries in the sequencing of DNA combine to give us one of the best examples of the validity of inductive reasoning.

The Human Genome Project has also put a final end to a a long standing social evil. Biologically, there are not different races of humans. Biologically, we are all the same. The idea of racism is not supported by science and the word racism is a misnomer, we are not different races. If you want to hate people, you'll have to find another basis. But, this is a topic for another essay.

Liberty does not require you to agree with all or any ideas except the prohibition on the use of force and fraud.

Now go make your loved-one a sandwich.

GUN CONTROL - EMOTION, REGULATION, AND ESSENTIALS

GUN CONTROL – EMOTION, REGULATION, AND ESSENTIALS

INTRODUCTION

This essay uses the gun control debate as a platform to examine two, more fundamental, philosophical issues. First, an epistemological (look it up) discussion of emotion and cognition, because so many people seem to abandon reason in favor of feelings in this issue. Second, an examination of a seldom discussed political conflict – protecting a community by the regulation (legal exceptions to liberty) of all citizens versus the simple punishment of criminals, I believe this is the underlying essential in the gun control debate. If you feel strongly about one side or the other on gun control, you should get something out of this – but, I hope you will also consider and spend some time thinking about the two basic philosophical ideas that underlie the wider issue.

After the recent tragedy in Newtown, CT, the gun control debate exploded in the media, and among my friends on Facebook. I enjoyed a few really great posts from FB friends, reasoned discussions that made me stop and consider my own position. Unfortunately, most of what I read was a waste of time because most posts were based on feelings and not reason. The hallmark of these emotional remarks was that they were pure opinion. They didn't include reasons for the opinions, so that readers could mimic the writer's thought process. Also, the adverbs and adjectives used in the writing, indicated an argument from anger.

Well, I think emotion and anger is reasonable and to be expected in the wake of such a senseless tragedy. However, that same combination is not a good basis for policy discussion. Passion is admirable, but no substitute for reason. Reason requires that we seek out the underlying essentials in a political debate. The whole experience gave me the motivation to investigate emotion, the enemy of reasoned debate, and regulation, a communities attempt to proscribe the behavior of all in order to make negligence and crime less likely.

Disclaimer - I believe writers, especially journalists, should qualify their comments – are they observing and reporting facts, or simply expressing opinions – both can be valid and interesting, but the point of view should be revealed. Here is a breakdown of what I intend in this essay. I'll first examine emotions – although this information may be new to you, I consider this section to be a recognition of biological facts rather than opinion. Then I'll describe the gun control debate – I'll try not to express too many opinions here, but only report both sides. Next a look at regulation versus criminal punishment that may include opinion and this may tell you something about my take on gun control which you can use to evaluate whether I was fair in the gun control debate. Finally a conclusion that is full of opinion. I don't want to change the way you think based on my opinion – then you'll just change your mind again based on the next idea. Change your mind or not, based on what you conclude, on your personal evaluation, with your reason. I hope to give you grist for your reason's mill.

EMOTION AND COGNITION – FEELING AND REASON

Have you ever seen a TV news segment, where a person in the crowd at a meeting of a local school or county board, is shouting in the microphone about one side or the other of an issue? You may happen to fall on the same side of the issue and you hope she will prevail, but, then you think, they won't take her seriously, she's too passionate.

Well, I disagree. Passion is not her problem. The problem is that the source of her passion is not based on a reasoned argument, but on emotion. She doesn't know that passion, while admirable, is not a substitute for reason. We can't know how to get beyond this flaw unless and until we define and understand the specific identities (natural characteristics) of the entities (human beings) involved in the scenario. So, here we go.

Emotions (feelings) are immediate and automatic biological responses to environmental stimuli. Some people will be uncomfortable with the idea that emotions are beyond their immediate control, but that's the fact. You may be thinking, “Hogwash, I can control my emotions.” Sorry no. You can control what you choose to do, after having felt the emotion, but you have no immediate control over whether you will feel it or not.

Emotions have a mental and a physical component The mental component is the sum total of all the influences, chosen or not, that live in the background of your mind – that is, your subconscious. The curious thing biologically, and evolutionarily, is that this complex mental process then leads to physical changes that have survival value.

Somehow, this subconscious thought process results in the autonomic stimulus of several body organs that release chemicals called hormones. These substances effect the function of body systems in ways we can perceive and in ways that are beyond direct perception; increased heart and respiration rate, changes in the chemistry of digestion, and perhaps the instant desire to hug or hit someone.

The physical component can be modified by pharmacology, but probably shouldn't be unless there is an organic illness. The mental component can be modified over time by changing what one chooses to think, but only for those few (self-aware) individuals who actively seek out basic knowledge about valid ways to think, the branch of philosophy called epistemology. Only with a conscious knowledge of the workings of this mental component, can you begin to exert conscious control over the inputs that influence your subconscious.

The automatic and instant nature of emotions has potential survival benefits. It shortens the time between stimulus and response in organisms whose neuro-biology is based less on instinct and more on cognition. Emotion gives you an instant assessment that doesn't require the time to think. Great when your kid is about to be attacked by a wild animal, but there is also a danger. Emotion is not evaluation, feelings are not reason. Even people who live a life in which they usually make their choices based on reason, tend to fall back on feelings when the stimulus evokes a strong, visceral response like the safety of your spouse or children. There are also some community issues that tend to draw the same strong response from a large number of otherwise reasonable people – the most famous issues that have recently caused this are abortion and gun control.

FIREARMS AND FEELINGS

The gun control debate provides a perfect example of the emotional process in action. Hold a firearm in your hands and examine your feelings. Most people's feelings fall into one of two categories. If you grew up without guns around, were exposed to the media in the last 50 odd years, and especially if the firearm is a handgun, you probably feel very uncomfortable; not just cautious, but a little fearful. That's reasonable, see how your automatic emotions are a protective mechanism?  Firearms are dangerous.

The first time I held a firearm was a .22 rifle in Boy Scout Camp at about age 12. The next time was a deer hunt in grad school. In both instances, the emotion was similar to that experienced when holding a snake – two words come to mind: danger and evil - it's not reasonable and it's not a comment.  Even today I am very cautious around firearms because my emotional response is generally negative. However, my reason tells me that law enforcement cannot protect me at the moment of home invasion. So, I have a German shepherd, a marine air horn to mimic a sophisticated alarm, and I have owned firearms. I've never had the experience that leads to a desire to possess firearms for recreation. To those of us who fit on this side of the issue, a firearm is a tool to be cautious with, at best, and a killer at worst.

If you grew up with firearms, were taught how they work, were taught safety, and have used them for sport or recreation, you have a different emotional reaction. There is still caution, but not fear. If you've been properly coached, you probably notice when a person hands you a firearm, whether he/she first clears it of ammunition and opens the action. If you fit on this side of the argument and you don't recognise this feeling, you may be part of the problem. To those of us who fit on this side of the issue, a firearm is a tool – and like many tools, it has to be given respect because it is inherently dangerous. Table saws make me as nervous as firearms.

Remember, my point here is not to change your mind about gun control. But, did you recognize your elevated heart rate and respiration, the mild to moderate feeling of discomfort, when I made statements that, while not opinions about gun control, did seem to support one view or the other? That emotional response and an understanding of it, is one reason for this essay. I think life is better when you know this stuff about yourself.

You may look at the two general groups I have discussed and say, “Yea, but those are normal people; raised in differing situations, but raised to be responsible at some level. What about the people not raised right, or who have mental problems?” That's a reasonable question, but is it the essential gun control question?

REGULATING ALL CITIZENS VERSUS PUNISHING CRIMINALS

I do have a strong opinion on gun control. I have not yet revealed it overtly, but you may think you have detected it. My opinion is not based on guns, it's based on two other ideas that are necessary for a free society. Liberty and good government.

First, it is almost always wrong to punish all citizens because some citizens are not suited to live in a voluntary, free community. There are two ways that communities can strive to protect themselves from the bad acts of members. The first and most obvious is to codify unacceptable behavior, tell the community what the consequences of these bad behaviors will be, and then institute a subgroup in the community to apprehend and punish those that engage in the unacceptable behaviors. These behaviors are almost always some derivation of the initiation of force or fraud on other citizens and the subgroup designated to deal with the criminals is called government. Folks, that's the first and most important function of government.

The second method of protection was almost done away with in communities that were established after the Enlightenment Period with the exception of communities established on the basis of a religious prejudice like the Puritans of colonial Massachusetts. This second method is when communities, through their governments, establish limits on human behavior that does not constitute force or fraud. It sounds complicated, but it's not. I'm talking about community regulations. No one has done anything wrong, but they might. Here are some examples: all licensing laws (barbers, doctors, insurers, banks, small businesses, etc, etc, etc.), legal requirements to insure, leash laws, state mandated marriage contracts, sharing of medical info, who can buy what investments, can an RV stay overnight in a Walmart parking lot, are you wearing your seatbelt, we could go on and on and on and on. Also, some regulations just make it easier for government to punish offenders by making the regulated, proximate act, the offense, rather than the result. Now government only has to prove the regulated act took place, regardless of whether it resulted in a criminal act.

Regulation is an attempt to head off bad behavior before it is committed. It proscribes or limits the behavior of all citizens because of a fear that some will act badly. There are so many different motivations for this method of social restraint, that it would take a series of books to describe it today. Avoidance of this method of social organization was the reason, in part or in total, for the political birth of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, the Carolinas, Georgia, Canada, and Australia.

THE GUN CONTROL DEBATE

The set of regulations that I am using today, as illustration, is gun control. The basic argument against any gun ownership is as follows: firearms are dangerous by their nature; some people will mishandle firearms and injure themselves or others in error; some people will use firearms to hurt other people on purpose; the need to own a firearm is outdated, we don't need citizen militias anymore; civilized people don't need firearms; they should be heavily restricted or banned altogether.

On the other side, of what I suspect is a bell curve of opinion, are gun owners who fear that any regulation will be a stepping stone to virtual abolition. These people own firearms for a variety of reasons, protection, sport, recreation, and criminal activity. They believe their strongest argument is the 2^nd amendment of the Constitution - “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.”

Both sides argue about what those words mean. Gun owners believe it is self-evident, “shall not be infringed.” Those who advocate control believe the clause is about gun use as part of a “well regulated militia,” not a right of individuals. So who is right? Well, it depends on whether you're asking about constitutional interpretation or the issue of gun control generally.

The constitutional issue is easy. If you spend any time reading the works of the founding fathers, and if you use your knowledge of English grammar, you will find that the phrase about militia is subordinate both grammatically, and was in the minds of the founders, to the idea of individual liberty. So here the “gun wackos” win. However, I believe that the 2^nd amendment is a bad argument for individual gun ownership because it is not an argument using essentials.

This 2^nd amendment argument throws out the process of reason in favor of what a bunch of guys thought in the 18^th century, guys who accepted slavery and the disenfranchisement of women. The founders did stop and think – they tried to reason outside of the day to day distractions – but, they didn't get it all right and they knew it. They (maybe because some saw the contradictions) did not expect the ideas in the constitution to be written in stone. They provided for a process of change through amendment, but they made the process difficult, in an attempt to discourage frivolous, short-term cultural changes. In any case, the 2^nd amendment is only one fact to be considered in the debate.

ESSENTIAL ISSUE #1

Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, and Newtown are evidence of failure on many levels – parents, family, neighborhood communities, the mental health system, etc. My brother, David, posted a passionate and reasoned letter on FB concerning these social levels. He pointed out that the parents in our neighborhood, growing up, all new each other; everyone took an interest in all the children; the oddballs and troublemakers were known and watched.

When all these potential safeguards fail, when citizens become criminals because of evil intent or mental illness, we have a mechanism we depend upon to protect us. Citizens surrender the right to use force for the sake of peace in their communities – in return they give the right to use force to a government – we give up a small amount of self-agency for government protection. Folks, it's not the only reason for these tragedies, but it's one of the reasons that never comes up. The gun control debate is a smokescreen for the fact that our government has failed us. Our representatives have been too busy debating policy with the NRA and gun control advocates – real debate about law-enforcement solutions has been lacking.

I actually heard more than one politician, just after Newtown, say that putting armed security in all the schools was too expensive. WHAT??? Protecting citizens from violence is the #1, #2, and #3 duties of a legitimate government – not protecting forests, not providing recreational activities, not protecting endangered species, not going to the moon, not studying pork or milk production, not providing food to hungry citizens, not providing jobs for the unemployed, etc., etc., etc., ...

I morn, I cry for the children of Newtown and their families – but, I cry for the next time too. It will come because people don't see that the problem is not the availability of guns, it's the preoccupation of elected representatives with getting re-elected. The level of partisanship in recent years is both cause and effect. It is an effect because we now have career politicians who want to get re-elected (not predicted or intended by the founding fathers), and it is a cause of the lack of compromise that could meaningfully lower the threat of mass shootings. You think we'd have the same gridlock if we had what the founding fathers intended, citizen legislator who served a couple of terms and then went back to their real careers?

I think the gun rights side won't budge because the gun control side is arguing from emotion and not reason. The control side keeps shouting about assault weapons – folks, an assault weapon, legally available today, is a fashion statement, it looks military, but it is no more lethal than the rifle used by your average deer hunter. You want the rights side to give into the reasonable limitation on liberty that result from total and strict gun registration? You want recreational firearms owners to think, “well, maybe we don't need 30 rounds in a clip?” Then you have to show that it is not the intent of the control side to disarm law-abiding citizens because an occasional nut will illegally modify the mechanism of a firearm.

ESSENTIAL ISSUE #2

The most famous image on the gun rights side is Charlton Heston holding some antique muzzle loader over his head at an NRA convention – he says, “From my cold dead hands.” Many people see that behavior as simple arrogance being used to satisfy a like-minded audience. Well, there's a little more to it. I believe when many people think of that image of Heston, they are thinking of Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pot, and those like them.

I want reasonable people to own guns because I don't trust government to always protect the people I care about. If the original, magnificent system of government that was created in our country can be perverted to the point that it is today, then I worry how much further liberty could be infringed. There are so many things that government does today, things that your average citizen thinks is commonplace and acceptable, things that would have been considered deplorable and immoral by our founding fathers – and remember these were guys who allowed slavery. Our government has gone so far outside it's basic, natural function, that it is not unreasonable for many people to question the government's commitment to the protection of citizen liberty. The proof of this is that the last sentence sounded natural to you, didn't it? I drew a clear distinction in that comment, a line between the government and the citizen population. That distinction was suppose to be eradicated by the ideal of the United States and you read it and accepted it as normal and common. It is now a common idea that the people is us and the government is them. This is proof that the great system, the hope of the human race, the monument to liberty and reason has stumbled. You don't trust your government and it's suppose to be yourself.

Oh, don't over play it, you think, government is safe. Perhaps you consider historical trauma and think, it could happen today. Study history, when every civilization decided it was so modern it didn't have to pay attention to the essentials which caused it's success, it collapsed. If you think we are too advanced to be fearful of government power then you have forgotten concentration camps, Japanese internment, Irish internment, African internment, the Civil Rights struggle, Pol Pot, apartheid, and the current situation in North Korea, Iran, and a dozen other locales.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

We have a problem in America with mass shootings. Emotions are an important survival mechanism, but not a substitute for reason. Some people want to outlaw firearms, but gun owners want to keep their weapons. Laws that restrict the choices of law-abiding citizens to participate in activities that do not constitute force or fraud on others, are a threat to liberty, the single most important life enhancer in our society. Citizens on either side of the gun control debate don't understand each other's life styles and don't trust each other's motivations. Political support for gun control is an attempt to re-define the issue and direct the blame for mass shootings away from government – the issue is the primary role of government is the protection of citizens from force and fraud and the government is failing because the system has been corrupted and is giving too much of it's attention to issues that are not a proper function of government. Compromise is not possible

I believe enough gun owners would be willing to accept reasonable restrictions if they felt that gun control advocates had no desire to strip them of the dual desire to protect themselves and to carry on a treasured cultural and historical idea. What would that take?

• We need a bipartisan committee of politicians, community advocates, and NRA officials to meet to discuss gun ownership, not gun control. These people would not recommend regulations, but outline what firearm rights should not even be debated.
• Because this is an emotional and national issue, we would need a president who can use the bully-pulpit to sell this initial compromise.

The proposal above could change the nature of the discussion in a way that could bring opposite sides together to discuss meaningful reform. So, after this conclave to promote compromise, what restrictions could actually have an effect on mass violence?

• All firearms should be registered and attributable to a citizen legally authorized to own – proven not to be criminally violent or mentally ill.
• Record of gun ownership should be available to the general public like sex offender records – that way, each citizen could know if some weirdo in the neighborhood owns a firearm. This idea may seem ridiculous to citizens living in a rural community, but those people should consider the legitimate concerns of their urban fellow citizens.
• People who use firearms (excessive force) in the commission of crimes, should receive very strict penalties. No “three strikes,” use a firearm in the commission of a felony, your intent is obvious – clear the prisons of drug users and incarcerate firearm felons for life. This should be publicized like the fire prevention campaign of Smokey the Bear in the 1970's.
• Gun owners will have to compromise on the legality of high round capacity and automatic weapons. Recreational use of such weapons could be restricted to private regulated sites, as they are in military training. It may be fun to shoot an automatic weapon with a high round capacity, but you just can't do it in your backyard and you have to give up the idea of having that capacity in your home Ted Nuggent.

But wait, if you're a control advocate and you're saying yes, yes, yes to the last part of my essay – you've got to decide that guns are here to stay and you're going to shut up about law-abiding citizens owning firearms for whatever legal purpose they desire.

Liberty does not require you to agree with all or any ideas except the prohibition on the use of force and fraud.

Now go make your loved-one a sandwich.

11 Mar 2013 - Test comment