Coatia Learning About The Absurdity of the EU

Croatia is set to become the 28th member of the EU on July 1st.  The Croatian government, and perhaps the people of Croatia, believe that entering into this illustrious Union will bring about economic prosperity and signify that Croatia is a modern European country.  But it looks like their celebratory cheers are turning into grimaces as the sweet nectar of the EU is revealed to be a bitter draught.

The Lesson Continually Never Learned

Chicago has reached a grim milestone this year with only 12 less murders than the entire year of 2008; which was a record I believe.  Now many will mention that Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, yet it has had no affect on crime. This is true though more liberal, looser, gun control laws allowing more citizens to own firearms wouldn't make a difference.

This isn't to say that I am not for more liberal gun control laws, I very much am, but you have to recognize the root cause for Chicago's problems.  The inability for citizens to own firearms legally for their protection isn't the root cause for Chicago's problem, though it certainly doesn't help, it is corruption, economic stagnation, and ineffectual enforcement.  The simple truth is that Chicago has high crime because Chicago is rotting from the inside. It's institutions, its ethics, the police, and civil ethics have all degrading tremendously.

 The lack of focus on the root causes of crime is were gun control efforts get it wrong, and were gun rights advocates should start their arguments from.  My opinion, after reading many studies on gun violence, is that looser firearm laws won't necessarily have any impact towards decreasing crime, gun violence, or violence in general. More firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens won't necessarily reduce crime, but that is irrelevant. The fact is that it is societal decay this is the cause of violence and crime in America. It is also a fact that firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens absolutely does not increase crime, and that it gives would be victims of crime a fighting chance.  The argument for firearms, comes down to two simple arguments.

The first argument is do you want citizens to be able to defend themselves or not? It is that simple, doesn't matter if we are talking about crimminals, corrupt government, or foreign invaders, it is all a matter of defense. Those who argue for complete firearm prohibition do not want people to defend themselves; they want the government to do it. Now many will call my comments unfair, that they are not arguing for people not to defend their lives and property from aggressors. Here is the simple truth, telling someone that they cannot be equally armed to their would be aggressors might as well be arguing for them to not be armed at all. If an assailant was coming after you with a firearm would you want your fists, a bat, a knife, pepper spray, a taser, or a gun? I think we know the answer. Let me reiterate, in principle, asking an individual to be less armed than the person assaulting them is akin to asking them to not be armed at all. Or to use a more graphic example, to ask those being raped to not resist the person raping them.

You will have some individuals that do not argue for complete prohibition, but do not want individuals to be armed with 'miltiary style' weapons.  They will give you all sorts of reasons why Americans shouldn't have, or don't need, them (assault weapons) but that simply leads me to my next argument. Argument number two is this, do you or do you not believe in liberty? American society was founded on the concept that someone should be able to do something unless there is absolute proof that what they do will harm others, and even then there must be compelling evidence that restricting that action or item would provide a demonstrable good to society.  If you cannot provide definitive proof that certain actions do harm to others, and if you cannot demonstrably prove that laws against such actions will do any good, then you cannot in good conscious advocate laws restricting someones liberty and still consider yourself a lover of liberty.  You cannot  equivocate this, it is a simple truth, any excuses you make will ring hollow. Is the act of owning an assault rifle harmful to society? And would preventing that act actually benefit society?

So let us examine assault rifles. Now I could go on and argue how there is no definitive proof that legal assault rifle ownership is detrimental to society, but that is a futile argument to make to gun control proponents. So let us assume, for the sake of the argument, that assault rifle crime is a problem and that limiting legal weapons is a realistic option to stifle that social ill. Senator Fienstein claims based off a study on her website, which I will not link, that from 1994 to 2004 crimes committed with assault rifles fell by around 6% and that this is evidence that the ban was effective in reducing gun crime. Ipso facto the assault weapons ban is a boon to society and a morally justifiable limitation of a person liberty.

This claim is weak, and frankly, absurd considering the myriad of items that would factor into crime with assault weapons. There is no way any person can say in all seriousness that we can construct a model that would accurately show us the effect that legal assault rifles would have on assault rifle crime, it is an impossibility. There is no such thing as Hari Sheldon's psychohistory and there never will be. All we can do is infer, and the greater the shift in movement the more likely our inference will be correct.  Given that this is the case, a 6% drop in ten years means absolutely nothing because a whole host of other items, prison sentences, convictions, economic growth, so on and so forth, could have played into that rather small drop. Remember a 6% drop is about a six tenths of a percentage point each year, absolutely minuscule. If there were say 30% drop in assault rifle crime, then her claims would have some credibility, but there wasn't, so her claim doesn't.

Given that we cannot definitely say that assault rifle crimes will be impacted by an assault rifle ban, then you cannot argue for additional restrictions for them and call yourself a lover of liberty. But wait, someone might, this is about stopping gang bangers from killing each other with AKs, this is about preventing horrible atrocities like the one in Connecticut or Colorado. OK fine, let us examine this.

First off, as terrible as these acts are, they are anomalies, and history is replete with events like this.  Here is something for you to ponder. What is the difference between a mass killer, who kills a bunch of people at once, and a serial killer, who kills a bunch of people over time? The only difference I can think of is that one type of killer emphasises the statement that his actions makes, while the other just may like killing individuals, psychologically there probably isn't a big difference between them. And are serial killers somehow less terrible than mass killers? The answer is no of course.

Now, the claim that banning assault rifles would prevent these atrocities is rather weak. First off, even if we assume that it would have a measurable effect on mass killings, there is no promise that the mass killer won't simply opt to go the route of the serial killer. Secondly, while someone might be able to make an argument that this last shooting would be prevented by an assault weapons ban. The idea that it would prevent other mass shootings, or mass violence in general, is completely unfounded. Colombine happened in the middle of an assault rifle ban. The Oklahoma city bombing was done without an assault rifle. Gun free Japan experienced a mass killing via Sarine gas. And the worst mass killing at an American school was done with dynamite. You will never entirely prevent these events from happening, it is an impossibility. Evil exits, and as sad as it is, we must accept that.

So we come to the conclusion, and that conclusion, assuming that you are being intellectually honest, is given that an assault weapons ban does not have any measurable affect on assault rifle crime as far as we know. And given that we cannot prevent mass killings. Then the only reason why someone continues to argue for an assault weapons ban on legally acquired assault rifles is because it would make them feel better.  Feeling better is not a good reason for policy, and it is not an acceptable reason for restrictions of individual liverty for those that love, and understand, liberty. There are people who would feel better about America if there was no interracial or gay marriage, or if gays couldn't adopt, or if we taxed the rich at 100%, if we completely outlawed religion, or if we forcibly deported anyone who wasn't a white protestant from England, Scandinavia, or Germany; yet we don't enact laws based on those individuals feelings, because we as a society recognize them for the absurdity that it would be to do so.

Someone who wants to say that they love freedom and liberty, or even that they respect peoples fundamental rights, cannot in good conscious argue for an assault weapons ban. Even if you do not like assault rifles, can't understand why someone would want them, or dislike guns in general, the fact is, you cannot support this ban simply because of your feelings about guns and how nasty and icky they are. You need to look at the issue rationally. And someone, who actually uses rational and not emotive reasoning, will be forced to draw the conclusion that this ban serves no good purpose.

Oh The Irony. The Delicious Irony.

When NBC news anchor David Gregory was arguing about banning high capacity magazines he displayed one on television in front of NRA chief executive LaPierre. In a delicious twist of irony David Gregory is now being investigated by the police for violation of Washington D.Cs ban on large capacity magazines.

I do not have sympathy for the man, not just because he is trying to infringe on 2nd amendment rights by arguing for laws that have no affect whatsoever on gun violence or violence in general. But also because a person arguing to make something illegal who doesn't take the time to make sure that what he is presenting isn't already illegal in the area he is presenting deserves what he gets. I doubt he has any sympathy for gun owners or gun store owners who have been nailed for failing to understand all of the byzantine labyrinth of our countries, state, and municipal codes, regulations and laws on firearms; so he gets none from me.

Note to all hoplophobs and gun grabbers. Being ignorant of not only how firearms work when trying to take away second amendment rights makes you look foolish; and only helps my cause. But as we see now, being utterly ignorant of the laws as well could also land you in trouble. Many, though unfortunately not all, gun owners are all too keenly aware of the wire thin line we walk when.  Maybe David Gregory will gain some sympathy for law abiding citizens who are turned into criminals because of ineffectual and ludicrous laws, but I doubt it.  So I will settle for some schadenfreude.

Sometimes It Is The Smallest of Things

I've talked with my girlfriend about moving somewhere else for a spell for a little while know. I've spent my entire life in one state, and one city. I love the state, and the city is beautiful as far as cities go; however, I've always wanted to go somewhere else for a short amount of time. Though only a period, as I always intended on raising a family and being buried in my home state.

That's beginning to change though. Ever since our plastic bag ban, and the forced tax in paper bags by my ever so forward thinking city, I've felt this urge to get away. I will most definitely leave the city to the suburb cities, which are rapidly growing more economically important and aren't so oppresively progressive and hostile to anything conservative or libertarian.  But I've even thought about leaving the state recently.

The rot is beginning to really weigh down on me. I hear others talk about how well managed, beautiful, and just plain awesome my city is. Adam Carolla has expressed how he wishes LA was more like my city. But having traveled extensively, including world class cities such as Shanghai, Rome, and Seoul, those cities look bright and polished until you take the time to take a good look.
There's a rot in every city, its something our fore bearers understood. Looking at decrepit roads, druggies, graffiti doesn't tell you anything in my opinion in regards to the state of a city as these things exist everywhere. A newcomer doesn't see it unless its really bad, like in LA. But the rot of Portland or Seattle will go unnoticed by all except those who live there, and choose to see it.  (I think that's one reason why you so many 'cultural reactionary' bloggers come from the city.  You truly understand the the beast when you've been in its belly.) Government, the laws that it passes, and more importantly, chooses to enforce, will tell you everything you need to know.

My city has plenty of ill conceived laws that in some instances violated our own state constitution. A few years ago our former mayor, now running for secretary of state, passed a law banning conceal carry from public parks. Never mind this law would do no good, or that our state attorney general said that it violated the state Constitution and would lose a lawsuit; it was passed by the city council anyways. Less than a year later the law was overturned in court and our city was on the hook for a substantial amount of money. The law angered me, the shear stupidity of passing a law that there was no doubt that it would be overturned alone is aggravating. The amount of money that was wasted just so a few egos and consciouses could be assuaged is unbelievalbe. But I could, and did ignore it becuase it didn't affect my daily life. There was no way anyone could stop me from carrying as the law was unenforceable. 

There are allot of laws, like the smoking ban half a decade ago, or the recycling fines, that as a matter of principal I detested. Yet the inability for the local government to real enforce those laws, or the fact that the law didn't really affect my day to day life, I shook my head and went about my day.  However things have changed and the laws are beginning to encroach on my daily life in small, but to me, meaningful ways.  The relative nusciance, that I would poke fun at and mock, that the city government was, has turned into a full blown feces throwing terror on my back.

First my city increased the times that you had to pay for parking by two hours, from 8 to 6 am to 8 and 8, and increased the rate one had to pay to park.  Ostensibly this was to alleviate parking congestion for downtown, but no one was fooled by that line.  Our local government is desperate for cash, and has a transit agenda unlike any other; our mayor has made no secret his disdain for our commuter culture.  In the half year since this change has been implemented I have received 6 parking tickets, costing me over $ 500.  Now I usually get one or two tickets a year due to meetings that over ran their expected time.  However the increase of tickets were due to a number of things, mostly due the time change and the ever increasing number of areas were you are now not allowed to park.

Perhaps the most violating was that I received a ticket in front of my residence for having expired tabs.  Since this was a residential area with no restrictions on street parking, it meant that there was no real reason for a parking attendant (I refuse to call them police) to be there, other than to look for reasons to give someone a parking ticket to fill the cities empty coffers.  It felt like a shakedown. I had my car broken into a week ago, with nothing taken thankfully, and I can honestly say I felt more violated by this instance than by the break in.  Parking police ostensibly exist to ensure that there aren't individuals illegally parked or to ensure that someone is not car squatting.  But I should know better.  The thing that made me the most angry is I hear constantly about how our police are understaffed and under worked; yet our city deems it a good use of our increasingly scarce resources to dedicate an individual to spend his/her entire day giving tickets to someone who is a few days late renewing their tabs.

Then we have this new ban on plastic bags; which won't do anything environmentally. And this tax on paper bags.  Yes the tax is insignificant, but seeing the sign that says plastic bags have now been banned, as if it is the equivalent of cocaine or child porn, makes my blood boil.  Banning plastic bags does nothing for the enviroment, (didn't we develop biodegradable bags?) and simply makes life more difficult for everyone else,  It reminds me that my city is increasingly filling up with crusaders, and individuals who are willing to tolerate the most inane and pointless of laws that come from these crusaders. (It's really isn't any surprise considering that my state has long been a popular destination of people escaping California.)

I wish escaping the city to one of the affluent burbs, many of which are now cities in their own right and far more dynamic economically and demographically; however, I know that crusaderism and reliance on the state nanny is only spreading. Like I said earlier our state is filling up with individuals from states that have become so oppresively statist that their own people flee them like rats from a sinking ship.  It has effectively taken my state, which was a moderately republican swing state only two decades ago, into the full on blue brotherhood.

One of our bridges became a toll bridge, to fund improvements and a new light rail system that is going in, but our state decided to make the toll permanent.  We now have bridge where it costs anywhere from $ 3 to $ 5, one way mind you, which naturally has forced individuals to take alternate routes to work.  Our civic leaders probably had hoped that this would have increased ridership on mass transit, of course it didn't.  Even worse the second bridge, which also happens to be part of the interstate system, was pre-approved by the federal government to become a toll bridge as well.

Given that the 'burbs have dramatically changed and become more urbanized, and less dependent on the central city, over the last 15 years it makes me think that there will slowly be an exodus of companies from downtown to the surrounding areas. My city is essentially were Detroit was for automobiles in the 1950s and 60s and LA was for entertainment and technology during the 1980s and 1990s.  My state boasts many biotech companies, startups, and one of the largest technology based companies in the world, but so many of us assume that we will always have this advantage.  Too few remember that we lost a long standing company to Chicago only ten years ago. We've seen how this story ends.  Furthermore I believe that the direction a state goes is related to were its most affluent and influential cities go. Last I checked both the states that held LA, Detroit, and Chicago have been doing rather poorly for some period of time.

So now I am thinking about where else I could move.  Sad to say that I do not think there are many states that equal mine for natural beauty, and none in climate (though admittedly we are drizzly during the winter).  The one's I have decided that I might enjoy, and that my girl friend also liked, she rejected Virginia and North Carolina. Where Alaska, Colorado, Texas, and New Hampshire, though the latter got in their due to the Free State Project despite its proximity to two states I would rather not live in.  Each state has their own drawbacks, Texas would be a hell hole if a catastrophic collapse ever occurred (too many people and far too little water), but I think the likelihood of total civil collapse, even moderate civil collapse, as very unlikely.  Texas seems the winner so far, with Alaska being a close second.

Either way this won't be happening soon as I am working on a project that will occupy much of my time, and provide much needed experience, for the next year and a half.  But you can never start thinking about this thing too early. And while I know that it is probably absurd that something so small as a plastic bag ban has really spurred me into thinking about leaving, the fact is, it has.  I still hold out some hope, considering that I love the surrounding country side and that my family lives here, that I will grow out of this desire to leave.  But for some reason I am not so sure that I will.