This post was inspired by Josh's on his political views. This is not an attempt to argue with him really, I've just been wanting to talk about this topic for some time and finally decided to.
Guns can be very very bad. Many needless deaths occur because of guns. Basically any psycho can wipe a whole bunch of people out. Guns provide a whole lot of power over human life that people never had before.
Nevertheless, I still support the right to bear arms. Here is why. For a simplified analysis, let's say there are good guys and bad guys (yes, I know it is unenlightened to call anyone bad, but bear with me). Bad guys use their guns to kill people; good guys use their guns to protect themselves and their families from the bad guys.
By eliminating the right to bear arms, you are saying "Good guys, put your guns away; bad guys, put your guns away." Who do you think is going to listen?
Yes, gun control could be enforced in some instances. I'm willing to admit that it would even prevent some deaths, but I believe the net effect would work against the good guys, and the overall deaths due to crime would increase. Gun ownership is a crime deterrent, telling law-breakers to put away their guns...not so much.
Look, 2nd amendment people aren't heartless; they are well aware of the damages caused by guns. By simply yelling more gun death statistics at us, you are not telling us anything new. We just believe more innocent blood will be shed when the innocents have less defense against those who do not follow the laws in the first place.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Inequality: Does it matter?
There were a couple of thoughtful comments to my last post.
The term inequality was brought up. So my question is this: does inequality matter?
The term "equality" gives me a new way to frame the topic of my last post. Conservatives typically look at equality of opportunity, whereas liberals tend to look at equality of resources. But doesn't resources equal opportunity? To some extent, yes.
But conservatives goal with government programs are typically different than that of liberals. Conservatives look at government as mostly a protector, even if their view is not limited to that of a military. Conservatives see welfare as being available for those who truly need it; and like the military, they may see it in terms of protecting people from bad things, such as hunger, living in the streets, etc... This is opposed to the more providing role of welfare as envisioned by liberals.
Conservatives typically view the role of welfare and other government programs as providing food and resources for those who need food and resources. It appears that liberals want government programs to "level the playing field" and provide equality.
Should equality be a goal? This is where I disagree with liberals. I think what a person has should be viewed in terms relative to their needs.
Look at it this way. If I have a 2-bedroom house over my head and I have enough groceries for 3 meals a day, does it really matter that my neighbor lives in a mansion and eats at the finest restaurants? No, I'm not saying gov't should provide homes and groceries, but my point is this: when we look at the poor, we should see if their needs are being met, not what they have relative to the rich.
When taxes are used to provide help for those who need it, I'm okay with that. When taxes are used to make sure people have the same amount of stuff, that breaks the Tenth Commandment.
Now, I'm not saying inequality never matters, because life is a competition, whether it is in school trying to get the best grades, or competing for scholarships, or competing for jobs based on the schools you attended. The schooling system is where inequality can shine through the most. But this is precisely where resources outside of government can provide the most help. The status quo with our school system is that the quality of school you get is proportional to how much house your parents can afford. School choice programs do equal the playing field.
When it comes to basic needs, comparisons between groups should not matter. However, inequality does play a role to what resources we have, and I believe school choice can greatly help with that.
The term inequality was brought up. So my question is this: does inequality matter?
The term "equality" gives me a new way to frame the topic of my last post. Conservatives typically look at equality of opportunity, whereas liberals tend to look at equality of resources. But doesn't resources equal opportunity? To some extent, yes.
But conservatives goal with government programs are typically different than that of liberals. Conservatives look at government as mostly a protector, even if their view is not limited to that of a military. Conservatives see welfare as being available for those who truly need it; and like the military, they may see it in terms of protecting people from bad things, such as hunger, living in the streets, etc... This is opposed to the more providing role of welfare as envisioned by liberals.
Conservatives typically view the role of welfare and other government programs as providing food and resources for those who need food and resources. It appears that liberals want government programs to "level the playing field" and provide equality.
Should equality be a goal? This is where I disagree with liberals. I think what a person has should be viewed in terms relative to their needs.
Look at it this way. If I have a 2-bedroom house over my head and I have enough groceries for 3 meals a day, does it really matter that my neighbor lives in a mansion and eats at the finest restaurants? No, I'm not saying gov't should provide homes and groceries, but my point is this: when we look at the poor, we should see if their needs are being met, not what they have relative to the rich.
When taxes are used to provide help for those who need it, I'm okay with that. When taxes are used to make sure people have the same amount of stuff, that breaks the Tenth Commandment.
Now, I'm not saying inequality never matters, because life is a competition, whether it is in school trying to get the best grades, or competing for scholarships, or competing for jobs based on the schools you attended. The schooling system is where inequality can shine through the most. But this is precisely where resources outside of government can provide the most help. The status quo with our school system is that the quality of school you get is proportional to how much house your parents can afford. School choice programs do equal the playing field.
When it comes to basic needs, comparisons between groups should not matter. However, inequality does play a role to what resources we have, and I believe school choice can greatly help with that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)