In war zones and areas of severe unrest we often hear news stories about the various sides sitting down and negotiating various things. Often these spouts of negotiation fail and hostilities resume. The underlying issue is that there are disagreements (duh, they were shooting at each other). And when there are important disagreements the disagreements need to be resolved. The most basic way to do this is force. If the other party is dead or too scared of you to press their point the disagreement is resolved and there can be peace.
Civilized societies are "civilized" because they have found ways of resolving these conflicts in nonviolent ways. Through the rule of law (arbitration, courts), and even through competitions in some cases. This allows conflict to be resolved with minimal damage to overall economic output and really makes the world a better place. There is much less dying this way.
Coming from the other direction though, we have situations where everything is peaceful and the rule of law stands. But as time progresses the various parties in conflict want increasingly contrary things and or the mechanisms for resolution break down and you reach a point where negotiations no longer work. This is where you see the start of violence. Violence that can lead, if negotiations continue to fail, to war. Not a "war of words" or a "flame war", but an honest to goodness shooting war with death and destruction.
The American Revolution is an excellent example of this. The colonies repeatedly asked the king for leniency in taxes and more say in taxation schemes and eventually they came to the conclusion that they could not gain the requisite hearing through words and that war was the only solution. It was a bad time, but did lead to a good thing in the end.
Unfortunately I am seeing hints of this in our own political discussion. The left and the right are increasingly at odds. Not just over "how to make America great again", but on issues like should America even be great? The very foundation of morality and justice. The principles upon which our nation was founded. The leftist ideology is, in it's fullness, truly irreconcilable with conservative fundamentals.
Do I think we are on the brink of civil war? No. However, if leftist ideology continues to grow in our nation it will bring with it increased conflict. That is already being seen in the routine news headlines about court battles over this social issue or that. So for now our civilized systems are working. But it is a possibility that that will not continue to be the case and violence will result. One could argue the recent attacks on police are evidence of this.
All in all we need to be aware of the significance of these events and realize that it is not impossible for negotiations to fail.
Tuesday, August 9, 2016
Monday, August 8, 2016
Itemizing Responsibility
I recently decided to do an audit of my responsibilities. I went through and listed all the things that I needed to do. From being a husband to mowing the yard. I then prioritized them. Which ones came first, second, third... And then I dove in to each item and wrote a bit about what I felt I needed to do, specifically, to do a good job, and how well I felt like I was doing.
It was an illuminating review. I still want to work on it some, but it really helped me refocus myself on what is really important. I have been focused a lot on work lately, and I realized that I need to move some of that focus to my family. It hasn't so much been an issue of time, but of focus and thought.
So with some renewed focus and perspective I hope to start taking steps to shift that focus up my priority list where it belongs.
It was an illuminating review. I still want to work on it some, but it really helped me refocus myself on what is really important. I have been focused a lot on work lately, and I realized that I need to move some of that focus to my family. It hasn't so much been an issue of time, but of focus and thought.
So with some renewed focus and perspective I hope to start taking steps to shift that focus up my priority list where it belongs.
Sunday, August 7, 2016
Music
I am not a big music person or maybe I am a huge music person. It just depends on your perspective. I don't listen to it very often. It really doesn't play a big part in my every day life. I own almost no music. So from that perspective I am not a music person.
However, there are times that I do listen. When I listen I will sit down, close my eyes and just focus on the music. I can enjoy any genre, but not most music in any of them. I like music with complexity and depth. That tells a story and has "soul" even if it is pop.
There are a few times where the music I was hearing coupled with the musician and the environment melded together to create a truly unforgettable experience. I saw this video below and it reminded me of that. It is very different, but it captures a lot of what I look for in a musical time.
Imagine you are on the mountain with him. Nothing around for miles and let yourself get lost in the experience. It is really cool.
However, there are times that I do listen. When I listen I will sit down, close my eyes and just focus on the music. I can enjoy any genre, but not most music in any of them. I like music with complexity and depth. That tells a story and has "soul" even if it is pop.
There are a few times where the music I was hearing coupled with the musician and the environment melded together to create a truly unforgettable experience. I saw this video below and it reminded me of that. It is very different, but it captures a lot of what I look for in a musical time.
Imagine you are on the mountain with him. Nothing around for miles and let yourself get lost in the experience. It is really cool.
Saturday, August 6, 2016
What is Your Sign?
Some people believe in the power of astrology and horoscopes. It has always seemed silly to me, but some people take it quite seriously. You might agree with me on the stupidity of astrology, but think about this. Are there any other things that that you allow to dictate your behavior or how you see yourself that are equally false?
Do you let lies hold you back? Do you allow yourself to be intellectually lazy and not learn new things because "I'm just not smart"? Do you give yourself a pass on being a good husband or father because "I'm just selfish"? Do you shortchange your talents and second guess yourself because "I'm not creative"?
The lies that we tell ourselves and allow other people to hand us are just as silly and limiting as religiously following the daily horoscope. The only difference is you are doing it to yourself.
Do you let lies hold you back? Do you allow yourself to be intellectually lazy and not learn new things because "I'm just not smart"? Do you give yourself a pass on being a good husband or father because "I'm just selfish"? Do you shortchange your talents and second guess yourself because "I'm not creative"?
The lies that we tell ourselves and allow other people to hand us are just as silly and limiting as religiously following the daily horoscope. The only difference is you are doing it to yourself.
Friday, August 5, 2016
The Silver Bullet
There are a lot of problems in the world. They range from small things, like not getting along with a coworker, to big things like the Middle East. The issues range from the easily solvable to the patently impossible. We have been discussing a lot of these issues over the past year in the context of the upcoming presidential election. There are a lot of things that people are not happy about in the great US of A. There are a lot of problems here.
Well one of the underlying challenges that we face is that there is a lot of disagreement. Not just about the proper mix of energy sources, or how involved the government should be in providing social services, but what constitutes morality and if that even matters. It is truly hard to find common ground when basic questions of morality are in direct conflict.
If we all agreed, not on methodology, but on fundamental values and ethics, that would solve a lot of issues. The increased unity and common understanding would lay the foundation for so many more to be resolved.
So if ever there is a silver bullet to solve society's problems it would be a large scale revival. If a significant percentage of the US became Christian's (and not just culturally Christian) the cultural shift would be massive. We would see a huge increase in national cohesion and unity and things that seemed impossible would just happen on their own overnight. It wouldn't be some kind of heaven on earth, but it would bring a much higher level of peace, safety, and prosperity to our nation and by extension the world.
The United States has never been a perfect place, but we have had a significantly higher level of shared national values and morals than we see today. It is a major reason why we were able to be so successful in the last century.
If you want to see the multitude of issues our nation faces resolved pray for revival. G-d is the only one who can save us.
Well one of the underlying challenges that we face is that there is a lot of disagreement. Not just about the proper mix of energy sources, or how involved the government should be in providing social services, but what constitutes morality and if that even matters. It is truly hard to find common ground when basic questions of morality are in direct conflict.
If we all agreed, not on methodology, but on fundamental values and ethics, that would solve a lot of issues. The increased unity and common understanding would lay the foundation for so many more to be resolved.
So if ever there is a silver bullet to solve society's problems it would be a large scale revival. If a significant percentage of the US became Christian's (and not just culturally Christian) the cultural shift would be massive. We would see a huge increase in national cohesion and unity and things that seemed impossible would just happen on their own overnight. It wouldn't be some kind of heaven on earth, but it would bring a much higher level of peace, safety, and prosperity to our nation and by extension the world.
The United States has never been a perfect place, but we have had a significantly higher level of shared national values and morals than we see today. It is a major reason why we were able to be so successful in the last century.
If you want to see the multitude of issues our nation faces resolved pray for revival. G-d is the only one who can save us.
Thursday, August 4, 2016
Never Again - Part 2: Why We Can't Stop Shootings
The mass killings that have been too frequently in the news has brought about numerous calls for this kind of thing to forever be stopped. Every killing is too many they say. Now I agree. It would be awesome for there not to be any more mass killings. However, let's look at what would really be needed to prevent them and then answer the questions about what the cost of those efforts would be.
Guns are frequently the tool used for these killings. A frequent refrain is to get rid of them to minimize the risk. The issue is that any gun that is semi-automatic (meaning it can hold multiple rounds and fire one shot per trigger pull) can be effectively utilized in a mass shooting and they have been. That covers most guns in existence. Additionally the people doing these shootings don't have much regard for the law obviously. The availability of them in society in general (legal or not) means that the only real way to keep them out of the hands of criminals is to ban guns entirely.
Thus the cost, all gun hunting and sport shooting would go away. People would not be able to have guns for personal protection despite the fact that most violence is not gun violence. The population would be unarmed and at the mercy of potential future totalitarian leaning governments. National defense would be degraded (that really is a factor). The biggest issue here though, and it is related to the threat of bad government, is that a lot of people are VERY attached to gun ownership. I do not believe that guns could be removed from society without the country going through a time of widespread violence, and even potentially a civil war. That is obviously counterproductive given the point was to avoid shootings in general.
There are unfortunately people and organizations who want to do harm to our nation. They are not dumb, and will use whatever means available to hurt us. That often comes in the form of guns, but even if we succeeded in disarming the whole country all we would do is make the bad guys have to be a little more creative. They could drive trucks through crowds (Nice) they could use knives to stab people (Israel, Japan). The only real change would be your average citizen would be more or less defenseless.
The cost of "never again" is just too high.
Guns are frequently the tool used for these killings. A frequent refrain is to get rid of them to minimize the risk. The issue is that any gun that is semi-automatic (meaning it can hold multiple rounds and fire one shot per trigger pull) can be effectively utilized in a mass shooting and they have been. That covers most guns in existence. Additionally the people doing these shootings don't have much regard for the law obviously. The availability of them in society in general (legal or not) means that the only real way to keep them out of the hands of criminals is to ban guns entirely.
Thus the cost, all gun hunting and sport shooting would go away. People would not be able to have guns for personal protection despite the fact that most violence is not gun violence. The population would be unarmed and at the mercy of potential future totalitarian leaning governments. National defense would be degraded (that really is a factor). The biggest issue here though, and it is related to the threat of bad government, is that a lot of people are VERY attached to gun ownership. I do not believe that guns could be removed from society without the country going through a time of widespread violence, and even potentially a civil war. That is obviously counterproductive given the point was to avoid shootings in general.
There are unfortunately people and organizations who want to do harm to our nation. They are not dumb, and will use whatever means available to hurt us. That often comes in the form of guns, but even if we succeeded in disarming the whole country all we would do is make the bad guys have to be a little more creative. They could drive trucks through crowds (Nice) they could use knives to stab people (Israel, Japan). The only real change would be your average citizen would be more or less defenseless.
The cost of "never again" is just too high.
Wednesday, August 3, 2016
What Makes a Good Government
A few weeks ago I was in a conversation with a friend where the topic of government came up. That isn't uncommon, but on this particular day the question was "what defines whether or not a government is good or not?" There were some suggestions made, like how frequently the government engaged in wars, how much of a culture of technological development there was, how safe it was to live in the country, etc. All were good suggestions, and important. However, after some thought I think I have found a metric, with some sub parts, that really get to the bottom of it.
The definition is pretty simple. A good government is one where the rules are consistent, knowable, and followable.
Consistent
Having rules and laws that are consistent means that they apply the same way to everyone and don't change very often. If there are different sets of rules based on all sorts of variables it both makes it harder to comply with the law as well as fostering discontent because of seeming unfair favor.
Additionally in situations where there are multiple factions with different sets of rules (organized crime or warlords etc.) it can make things very complicated based on who is in charge of a situation.
The biggest way that consistency can be implemented is through the rule of law. Having agreed upon rules that are written allows everyone to know them and avoids rule of man which can be very fickle and inconsistent. It is a big part of why western civilization has been so successful and why corruption is so damaging.
Knowable
This is similar in a lot of respects to consistent. However, one big difference is the benefit of having set in stone and codified rules can be negated to some extent if they are overly complicated, extensive, or otherwise inaccessible. The issue is when things become too complicated your average citizen becomes mostly unable to engage with the law in a meaningful way and must go through arbiters.
This reduces the consistency of the law's application because the skill of various arbiters (lawyers) varies and overly complicated laws force more litigation which puts the enforcement more in the hands of judges which allows a greater risk of the rule of man to raise its ugly head.
Followable
This of course plays off the previous two, but again has its own nuance. Even if the rules are consistent and knowable if they are very stringent and the penalties quick and brutal it is not good. Quality of life degrades if you can be executed on the street for doing something simple like spit.
So laws need to be reasonably easy to follow, and the consequences need to be both proportional and follow due process to give people warning as to the consequences as well as having a process to go through to avoid false accusations and unjustified punishment.
Conclusion
When you put all these together, even if you don't personally like the specific rules you will have a society that is navigable and functional. Plans can be made, business can be conducted, and peace and prosperity will come.
The definition is pretty simple. A good government is one where the rules are consistent, knowable, and followable.
Consistent
Having rules and laws that are consistent means that they apply the same way to everyone and don't change very often. If there are different sets of rules based on all sorts of variables it both makes it harder to comply with the law as well as fostering discontent because of seeming unfair favor.
Additionally in situations where there are multiple factions with different sets of rules (organized crime or warlords etc.) it can make things very complicated based on who is in charge of a situation.
The biggest way that consistency can be implemented is through the rule of law. Having agreed upon rules that are written allows everyone to know them and avoids rule of man which can be very fickle and inconsistent. It is a big part of why western civilization has been so successful and why corruption is so damaging.
Knowable
This is similar in a lot of respects to consistent. However, one big difference is the benefit of having set in stone and codified rules can be negated to some extent if they are overly complicated, extensive, or otherwise inaccessible. The issue is when things become too complicated your average citizen becomes mostly unable to engage with the law in a meaningful way and must go through arbiters.
This reduces the consistency of the law's application because the skill of various arbiters (lawyers) varies and overly complicated laws force more litigation which puts the enforcement more in the hands of judges which allows a greater risk of the rule of man to raise its ugly head.
Followable
This of course plays off the previous two, but again has its own nuance. Even if the rules are consistent and knowable if they are very stringent and the penalties quick and brutal it is not good. Quality of life degrades if you can be executed on the street for doing something simple like spit.
So laws need to be reasonably easy to follow, and the consequences need to be both proportional and follow due process to give people warning as to the consequences as well as having a process to go through to avoid false accusations and unjustified punishment.
Conclusion
When you put all these together, even if you don't personally like the specific rules you will have a society that is navigable and functional. Plans can be made, business can be conducted, and peace and prosperity will come.
Tuesday, August 2, 2016
The Responsibility of Choice
When you make a choice you accept at least some of the responsibility for the consequences of that choice. Most of the time our choices do not have very big consequences. Like, sure you got gas from eating Mexican, but that is an acceptable cost for the yumminess.
Occasionally there is a decision though that carries a bit more weight than short term intestinal hijinks. One of these is the upcoming election in November. There are four candidates running for president who basically everyone can vote for. Democrat, Republican, Green, and Libertarian. After looking at all of them here are my reviews.
Democrat: Hillary is unapologeticly and overtly corrupt. She has a history of dealing in favors for money and donations with both foreign interests, and business interests. She is also criminally negligent at best in regards to her email during her tenure as secretary of state. Additionally I do not agree with her politics, but I would not vote for anyone who has her performance record.
Republican: Trump manages to offend everyone. His business background is questionable in both success and ethics. He is far from conservative and his success seems to be more about the Republican base giving a giant f*ck you to the party establishment than much else. He has not given me much to incentivize me to vote for him.
Green: I don't know a lot about Stein, but she seems to be pretty well representative of the Green party as a whole... which is batsh*t crazy. They make Sanders look tame. I'm not voting for them.
Libertarian: Gary Johnson is the worst Libertarian I think I have ever heard of. He doesn't think religious liberty is an inherent constitutional right and he is a big foreign policy hawk (as far as libertarians go). He really is the party's Trump. This would be my Republicans suck go to, but it's not happening.
All told, at this point I am not sure I can vote for any of the candidates in good conscience. I might change my mind, but that is the state of the world today.
Occasionally there is a decision though that carries a bit more weight than short term intestinal hijinks. One of these is the upcoming election in November. There are four candidates running for president who basically everyone can vote for. Democrat, Republican, Green, and Libertarian. After looking at all of them here are my reviews.
Democrat: Hillary is unapologeticly and overtly corrupt. She has a history of dealing in favors for money and donations with both foreign interests, and business interests. She is also criminally negligent at best in regards to her email during her tenure as secretary of state. Additionally I do not agree with her politics, but I would not vote for anyone who has her performance record.
Republican: Trump manages to offend everyone. His business background is questionable in both success and ethics. He is far from conservative and his success seems to be more about the Republican base giving a giant f*ck you to the party establishment than much else. He has not given me much to incentivize me to vote for him.
Green: I don't know a lot about Stein, but she seems to be pretty well representative of the Green party as a whole... which is batsh*t crazy. They make Sanders look tame. I'm not voting for them.
Libertarian: Gary Johnson is the worst Libertarian I think I have ever heard of. He doesn't think religious liberty is an inherent constitutional right and he is a big foreign policy hawk (as far as libertarians go). He really is the party's Trump. This would be my Republicans suck go to, but it's not happening.
All told, at this point I am not sure I can vote for any of the candidates in good conscience. I might change my mind, but that is the state of the world today.
Monday, August 1, 2016
Never Again
When something bad happens it is easy to want to do everything you can to never let that bad thing happen again. We frequently hear this kind of sentiment expressed by politicians following a shooting or the discovery of some large fraud or other man made badness. This sentiment is natural as well as common. However, a following question that is very often omitted from the discussion is what is the cost of preventing that thing?
When I was a kid we had issues with birds trying to fly in our front door. It was a glass door storm door and we often left the main inside door open. They would bang and smash against it. It was annoying and hurt the birds. So we decided "never again" and put some nice strips of tape on the door in a pretty little pattern. The birds realized something was there and it ceased to be a real issue.
That is an example where the issue was effectively removed at a very limited cost. That is good. But....
We do that with airplane crashes too. Now, no one wants more planes to crash. The FAA has followed a process that basically involves rewriting the rules every time a plane crashes to make sure that failure never happens again. In theory this is good. And really in execution it has worked very well. Flying is about the safest thing you can do. But there is a cost. A literal cost. The added regulations make the process of building and operationg airplanes more expensive. So expensive in fact that there are basically no startups getting into the aircraft industry, especially in the commercial transport sector.
Is that an exchange we are good with? Maybe maybe not. It doesn't seem to be a topic of discussion much.
We could get into the topic of forever avoiding gun violence, but that is a book and a half all on its own.
When I was a kid we had issues with birds trying to fly in our front door. It was a glass door storm door and we often left the main inside door open. They would bang and smash against it. It was annoying and hurt the birds. So we decided "never again" and put some nice strips of tape on the door in a pretty little pattern. The birds realized something was there and it ceased to be a real issue.
That is an example where the issue was effectively removed at a very limited cost. That is good. But....
We do that with airplane crashes too. Now, no one wants more planes to crash. The FAA has followed a process that basically involves rewriting the rules every time a plane crashes to make sure that failure never happens again. In theory this is good. And really in execution it has worked very well. Flying is about the safest thing you can do. But there is a cost. A literal cost. The added regulations make the process of building and operationg airplanes more expensive. So expensive in fact that there are basically no startups getting into the aircraft industry, especially in the commercial transport sector.
Is that an exchange we are good with? Maybe maybe not. It doesn't seem to be a topic of discussion much.
We could get into the topic of forever avoiding gun violence, but that is a book and a half all on its own.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)