Dean Cook – Page 8

“Beto” likes guns just fine…when HE decides who to use them on

At the recent Democratic Debates, Robert “Beto” O’Rourke attempted to demonstrate his “no compromise” attitude on guns by saying: “Hell Yes, We’re Going To Take Your AR-15”

https://reason.com/2019/09/12/beto-orourke-hell-yes-were-going-to-take-your-ar-15/

What it demonstrated was his willingness to have the state initiate physical force.

He does not mean: “Hell yes, if you are a force-initiator, we’re going to take away your AR-15”

This could easily be done with a law that says: “It shall be unlawful to possess an AR-15 with the intent to commit a felony.”

But, this wouldn’t accomplish what O’Rourke wants, since most owners of AR-15’s would continue to legally hold them. The government would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they had the weapon for the purpose of committing a felony, which most AR-15 owners would never do.

What O’Rourke wants is to remove this type of weapon from general circulation in the civilian world as a “prophylactic measure”. In other words, he thinks that by doing this, the number of murders in America will decrease. Never mind that the number of murders committee with so-called “assault weapons” is much smaller than the number of murders committed with handguns. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls

So, what O’Rourke is actually saying is: “Hell yes, we are going to use the power of state force to deprive you of your property, even if you keep it for self-defense.”

In other words, he is saying: “The state can use physical force to deprive you of your values, and if you attempt to resist, the police will come to your house and attempt to arrest you. If you resist, you will be shot by the State.”

“Beto” wants to use the guns of government to kill anyone who wants to live.

“Give Me Freedom Or Give Me Death”

I am old enough to remember the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. (https://www.britannica.com/event/Tiananmen-Square-incident )

The student protestors were eventually wiped out by a brutal totalitarian dictatorship that is responsible for the death of millions of people.

In 1989 George HW Bush did almost nothing to stop it or to register any sort of protest. It was one of a large number of foreign policy blunders made by a president with few principles:

“Though President George H.W. Bush initially denounced the crackdown, suspended arms sales to China and announced some other sanctions, the administration decided early on that it wasn’t going to allow Tiananmen to become a turning point in U.S. policy. It became clear that the official response would be essentially to pretend that nothing had happened.” (https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-1989-the-u-s-decided-to-let-beijing-get-away-with-murder-11559311545)

Instead, our government continued on with “business as usual” with the vicious dictatorship of mainland China, which continued to steal our technology, our wealth, and our nation’s moral integrity. All the while, Red China continued to build itself up militarily, and now may be too big for us to easily defeat. We have created our own monster.

Then, we allowed Hong Kong to be handed over in 1997, ceding people, wealth, and territory to the Communist looters. They claimed it would be “one country, two systems”. But, it’s impossible to combine freedom with “a few controls”. In time, one or the other must give way:

“A mixed economy is a mixture of freedom and controls—with no principles, rules, or theories to define either. Since the introduction of controls necessitates and leads to further controls, it is an unstable, explosive mixture which, ultimately, has to repeal the controls or collapse into dictatorship.” (Ayn Rand, “The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus”, http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/mixed_economy.html.)

The Chinese government’s modus operandi with respect to Hong Kong has been: “One country, another slave-pen”.

But, the people of Hong Kong aren’t going to go quietly. With the advent of an extradition law that would allow the city-state’s residents to be tried on mainland China, thereby destroying any chance they might have of legitimate due process, Hong-Kongers decided they had had enough.

The student protestors, as well as the older residents of Hong Kong, have been admirably engaged in numerous protests, fighting for their lives and liberty. Some of the protestors even waive American flags, and British Union Jack flags, in reference to the common law system of government we all share. (See this video from a Hong Kong resident, at about two minutes in, were he says Hong Kong is under common law.)

America and Great Britain now have a chance to redeem themselves after they stood by silently and watched the student protestors of Tiananmen get slaughtered in 1989 and handed over H.K. without a shot being fired in 1997. Our governments should do everything they can to bring diplomatic and economic pressure to bear on the Chinese government, to honor its promise of a free Hong Kong. If there should be a repeat of Tiananmen Square, there should be serious economic and political consequences for Red China. I am no expert on diplomacy, or what is in the realm of the possible in foreign affairs, short of all out war. But, some things to consider would include:

(1) Instant recognition of Taiwan as an independent country by the United States, and a commitment by the United States to defend Taiwan militarily, if China should attempt to use force against that nation. Also, consider providing the Taiwanese with enough nuclear weapons to defend themselves against China.

(2) Encourage Japan to amend its constitution to allow for the creation of an army and navy, and provide the Japanese with nuclear weapons capable of reaching mainland China in the event of a conflict. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/anderscorr/2017/04/30/why-north-korea-cannot-have-nuclear-weapons-but-japan-and-south-korea-should/#4f2cca5d3943)

(3) Provide nuclear weapons and missile technology to India, already a nuclear power, so that they are capable of reaching Chinese targets.

(4) State that any attempt by China to annex islands or other territory in the Pacific will be considered an act of aggression. (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-13748349)

(5) Massive Economic Sanctions On China, including prohibitively high tariffs on the import of all Chinese goods into the United States. Normally, I am for free trade, but China is a totalitarian state, and as such, an outlaw nation, as sure as any group of pirates or other gang would be. America should consider itself at war with any totalitarian nation, even if no shots are being fired due to other, practical, considerations. We should boycott all such countries economically, diplomatically, and morally. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/foreign_policy/3.html

This is our chance, as Americans, to stand with a people who stand with the spirit of Patrick Henry. Don’t let the people of Hong Kong go unheard.

Dissecting “Structural Racism”

I have heard terms like “systemic racism”, “structural racism”, and “institutional racism” thrown around, mostly by white, left-leaning college students, and I was curious to discover what these terms are supposed to mean. I found a paper, written by Keith Lawrence of the “Aspen Institute on Community Change”, and by Terry Keleher, of the “Applied Research Center at UC Berkeley”, called: “Chronic Disparity: Strong and Pervasive Evidence of Racial Inequalities POVERTY OUTCOMES Structural Racism” (A free version is available here: http://www.intergroupresources.com/rc/Definitions%20of%20Racism.pdf)

UC Berkeley certainly has “credibility” in my mind as standing for all things “leftist” in our society, so I was convinced the second author spoke for a large academic and political constituency. I’ve never heard of the “Aspen Institute on Community Change”, but The Huffington Post, another purveyor of leftist ideology, seems to know who he is. That’s good enough to convince me that these two authors speak for the majority of left-wing academics and journalists out there on the idea of “structural racism” and what it is supposed to mean.

The paper provides the following definitions:

“Structural Racism in the U.S. is the normalization and legitimization of an array of dynamics – historical, cultural, institutional and interpersonal – that routinely advantage whites while producing cumulative and chronic adverse outcomes for people of color.….Structural Racism encompasses the entire system of white supremacy, diffused and infused in all aspects of society, including our history, culture, politics, economics and our entire social fabric. Structural Racism is the most profound and pervasive form of racism – all other forms of racism (e.g. institutional, interpersonal, internalized, etc.) emerge from structural racism.”
(https://www.scribd.com/document/295254225/Definitions-of-Racism-Chronic-Disparity-Self-Assessment. Free version: http://www.intergroupresources.com/rc/Definitions%20of%20Racism.pdf )

The paper goes on to say that the primary way you know “structural racism” exists is the fact that there is “inequality” among the races. In other words, so long as there are a disproportionate number of black people who are poorer than white people, then there is “structural racism”. The paper says it’s difficult, if not impossible, to actually identify any *particular* government, social, or business policy that causes “structural racism”. It’s simply assumed that it must be there because black people are poorer than white people on average:

“The key indicators of structural racism are inequalities in power, access, opportunities, treatment, and policy impacts and outcomes, whether they are intentional or not. Structural racism is more difficult to locate in a particular institution because it involves the reinforcing effects of multiple institutions and cultural norms, past and present, continually producing new, and re-producing old forms of racism.”( https://www.scribd.com/document/295254225/Definitions-of-Racism-Chronic-Disparity-Self-Assessment. Free Version: http://www.intergroupresources.com/rc/Definitions%20of%20Racism.pdf )
Starting in the 1960s, “Jim Crow” laws were legally abolished in the South. Laws were also passed outlawing any form of “discrimination” based on skin color in housing, jobs, and other areas of public life. Additionally, the welfare state was massively expanded, with wealth transfers from whites to blacks. (See https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p70-141.pdf , Page 6: “Both the likelihood of receiving means-tested assistance and the length of benefit receipt differed among racial groups. In 2012, the average monthly participation rate for Blacks, 41.6 percent, was higher than that of Asians or Pacific Islanders at 17.8 percent and non-Hispanic Whites at 13.2 percent.”)

Despite all of these legal changes in the 1960’s, blacks, as a group, remain poorer than whites. (https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2018/demo/p60-263.pdf) . Blacks also have a number problems associated with their demographic group. For instance, crime rates that are disproportionate to their percentage of the population, and heavy “black on black” crime- i.e., black criminals are mostly preying on other black people. In some years, more than fifty percent of the murders in the United States are black people being murdered by other black people, despite the fact that they are only about 13 percent of the American population. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-21 (Think of the gangs in Chicago, and the almost ritualized murder that goes on there between black gang members, and you’ll see why this is the case. See Page 18 of: https://home.chicagopolice.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/2011-Murder-Report.pdf )

There are also large numbers of black unwed single mothers raising children without a father. For instance, in 2017, according to the US Census, 6,229 thousand black children under 18 out of 13,232 black children were living in single mother households. While 11,603 thousand white children out of 53,291 thousand were living in single-mother homes. That is, 47 percent of black children were with single mothers, while 22 percent of white children were with single mothers. (See Table CH-2 and CH-3 at: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/families/children.html )

These dismal figures create a problem for black racial collectivists like Al Sharpton, and their “white progressive allies”: They need an explanation for why, despite the fact that there is no legalized race discrimination, and even laws prohibiting race discrimination in jobs, housing, employment, and other areas, blacks still are in a lower socio-economic class from whites. They also need to explain the large numbers of single black mothers raising fatherless children, and the disproportionate amount of black crime committed -mostly against other black people. This explanation has to place the blame somewhere other than the black people making bad choices. This rationalization needs to avoid looking at the attitudes, behaviors, and choices made by black people, and look outward, at the white majority.

Furthermore, they need an explanation that will dismiss the fact that most Americans appear to oppose any kind of racial discrimination, and generally regard judging people based on skin color to be wrong. In fact, they need to explain how the laws prohibiting race discrimination got passed in the first place. If Americans are mostly racist, why would a racist white majority pass laws that prohibit firing someone because of their skin color?

A system of philosophy with its origins in Marx, and probably other philosophers, can provide the rationalization needed. Marxism says that the bourgeoisie fundamentally didn’t think like the proletarians, and vice versa. These two groups could not use reason and persuasion with respect to each other, because the content of their minds, their ideas, were ultimately determined by their social class -by their “material circumstances”. This is why Marx viewed socialists who believed that there could be a peaceful transition to socialism as “utopians”. They didn’t recognize what Marx saw as “reality”. Marx, on the other hand, viewed his version of socialism as “scientific” -because he embraced the “class struggle” -which in practice meant eventual warfare between the proletarians and the bourgeoisie, until the bourgeoisie could be wiped out. Only then could socialism be achieved. For Marx, the bourgeoisie couldn’t help what they were, and couldn’t help but exploit the proletarians. Individual bourgeoisie might claim to be fighting for the proletarians, but, as a whole, they invariably exploited the proletarians because of the way their minds worked, which caused their thoughts and actions to be fundamentally at odds with the proletarians.

Black racial collectivists and their white “allies” take this idea, and simply racialize it. The white majority takes the place of the bourgeoisie. Now, it is the whites, who have a system and method of thinking that is fundamentally different and at odds with blacks, who are the new “proletarians”. This paper on “structural racism” supports this idea. It says that “racism” is defined as “…race prejudice plus power.” (Page 13: http://www.intergroupresources.com/rc/Definitions%20of%20Racism.pdf )

What is “power” according to this paper?:

“The People’s Institute defines power as ‘having legitimate access to systems sanctioned by the authority of the state.’ (Chisom and Washington, op. cit., p. 36.) Other definitions which you might find useful are: 000 Power is the ability to define reality and to convince other people that it/s their definition. (Definition by Dr. Wade Nobles)…” (See Page 21: http://www.intergroupresources.com/rc/Definitions%20of%20Racism.pdf)
Notice this second definition, in particular. Reality isn’t simply something separate and apart from the observer. It is somehow “plastic” or “malleable”, depending on the mind that observes it. This is a Marxist notion:

“Karl Marx later provided the most succinct statement of the collectivist view of the primacy of social interaction in the preface to his Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy: ‘It is not men’s consciousness,’ he wrote, ‘which determines their being, but their social being which determines their consciousness.’” https://www.britannica.com/topic/collectivism

For Marx it was one’s “social being”, i.e., whether he was proletarian or bourgeois, that determined “his consciousness” The content of his mind, his ideas had less to do with an independent reality, and more to do with the group he was born into. (I have written on the before: http://deancook.net/2018/08/16/karl-marx-polylogism-and-utopian-socialism-how-fundamental-philosophy-drives-history/ )

Given this Neo-Marxist view of “power” as being “…the ability to define reality and to convince other people that it/s their definition….”, the fact that there are whites, even a majority of whites, who oppose judging people in hiring and jobs based on the color of their skin, and even pass laws to outlaw it, doesn’t matter. Whites, by their invariable method of thinking, based in the nature of the “white mind”, institute social structures that “systematically” oppress black people. This is their explanation for how, today, there can be no legalized discrimination based on skin color, and how most whites express a desire that there be no such legalized discrimination, and yet blacks are still economically behind whites.

Pointing to lower average IQ scores among blacks than whites as an alternative reason for the disparity is seen as “systematic racism”. The black racial collectivists and their white apologists basically say the tests are “rigged” in favor of white people, even if the white people are all acting in good faith to create fair tests. (And “fair” is another “white idea” anyway.) They believe that IQ tests reflect the nature of the white mind, which is fundamentally different from the black mind. IQ is a “Euro-centric concept”. To the black racial collectivist, the fact that IQ tests have been shown to correlate with job success and achievement simply reflects the white majority’s ability to somehow “rig reality” to promote their race over the black race. (https://www.aei.org/society-and-culture/the-bell-curve-explained-introduction/)

The subjects of history, economics, science, and every other field, reflects “Euro-centricm” because the white mind is fundamentally not the same as the black mind. “Reason” is just another system for whites to, mostly unknowingly and unwittingly, exploit blacks. Hence, the funding for “black studies programs” at universities, where they can supposedly find this “black logic” that is fundamentally different from “white logic”.

This is why blacks who study in school, work hard, and obey the law are “acting white”. They are trying to adopt a system and method of thinking that is essential to the “white mind”, but not the “black mind”. Page 5 of the paper says this: “The acceptance by persons of color of Eurocentric values.” ( http://www.intergroupresources.com/rc/Definitions%20of%20Racism.pdf)

How do they explain high levels of black on black murder compared to white on white murder, and high levels of black men abandoning their children to be raised by single mothers? According to the purveyors of “structural racism”, the reason for all of this is “internalized systemic racism” of black people by their “white oppressors”:

“INTERNAUZED RACISM: (1) The poison of racism seeping into the psyches of people of color, until people of color believe about themselves what whites believe about them — that they are inferior to whites; (2) The behavior of one person of color toward another that stems from this psychic poisoning. Often called ‘inter-racial hostility;’…” (Page 5: http://www.intergroupresources.com/rc/Definitions%20of%20Racism.pdf )

In other words, the fact that a black man murders another black man isn’t really his fault. It’s the fault of the whites who made him that way, and the white oppressors can’t even help the way that they are:

“A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States…” (Page 5: http://www.intergroupresources.com/rc/Definitions%20of%20Racism.pdf )

What is the purpose of this way of thinking? If backs and whites fundamentally think differently, by their very nature, then how can they communicate at all? How could there be any sort of dialogue or understanding between blacks and whites? I think for “race pimps” like the authors of this paper, it’s just a con game -a way of absolving individual black people of their own responsibility for where they are in life, and shifting the blame to whites, who will then feel guilty and provide more welfare and legal benefits to blacks. Hence, the push for things like “reparations”, today.

But, it’s a very dangerous game they’re playing. At some point, a sufficient number of people with this sort of “polylogist thinking” will draw the obvious conclusion from it. If blacks and whites fundamentally cannot reason or dialogue with each other, then only one method is left: Physical force. In fact, the authors of this paper seem to advocate the use of physical force by black people when they speak of what it means to be an “anti-racist”:

“(As applied to people of color), some use the term anti-racist. Others use synonyms such as freedom fighter, activist, warrior, liberation fighter, political prisoner, prisoner of war, sister, brother, etc.” (Page 6: http://www.intergroupresources.com/rc/Definitions%20of%20Racism.pdf )

Notice how most of the metaphors used here are that of people engaged in a violent struggle or war. This is because, on some level, racial collectivists, just like Marxists, believe in a “class struggle” that can only be resolved with violence. They use the language of warfare to describe themselves, because it is a war to them. This is why you can expect to see more things like the 2016 shooting of white cops in Dallas by a black racial collectivist.

These ideas have come to dominate our universities, our media, and our cultural institutions. This means the level of violence between the races will continue to escalate. In the end, the racial collectivists will get their desired race war, if we don’t repudiate ideas like “structural racism”.

The “Hot Button Issue” of Abortion

I wanted to write a little about this because I rarely do. I am also hoping that I can bring a somewhat “nuanced” viewpoint to a discussion that tends to be driven by pure emotion. Right off the bat, I will state that I do think there should generally be some legal right to terminate a pregnancy, with a recognition that there may be some legal “line drawing”, which I think reasonable parties can disagree on. If you disagree with me, please at least hear me out.

Biological evidence seems to show that a fetus does not have a rational capacity. In fact, it may be that even a newborn infant does not have a rational capacity, which develops some time after birth. This is because the cerebral cortex appears to be underdeveloped, even at birth. This feature of the human brain is responsible for most of what we think makes us human. It also appears to be the physical structure involved in what philosophers would call “the rational faculty”. The reason for this late development of the cerebral cortex has to do with how the fetal body and brain develops, which follows the path of evolution. For instance, human fetuses have gills and a tail at a very early stage. Since the cerebral cortex developed last in the our pre-human ancestors, it makes since this feature comes about last. It’s also necessary to keep brain size fairly small so thet the baby can pass through the mother’s birth canal. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100712154422.htm

The fact that a cerebral cortex is not fully developed even at birth is significant to me because rights are based in the fact that human beings can deal with each other on the basis of reason and persuasion, making the use of physical force against each other unnecessary:

However, the point at which a baby develops a rational faculty in biology is probably not fully understood, and I will move forward with the rest of my argument on this issue without reference to whether a baby or a fetus has a sufficiently developed cerebral cortex or not. My argument for some legal right to abortion for some period of time during pregnancy doesn’t stand or fall on the issue of when the cerebral cortex is sufficiently developed.

How are rights violated? Rights are violated by other’s use of force to deprive you of a value against your will.

“Man’s rights can be violated only by the use of physical force. It is only by means of physical force that one man can deprive another of his life, or enslave him, or rob him, or prevent him from pursuing his own goals, or compel him to act against his own rational judgment.” (The Virtue of Selfishness, “The Nature of Government”, Ayn Rand)

This does not mean that force can never be used. It just means the times that force can be used are limited to those in which you are not trying to deprive another person of a value. For instance, force can be used in retaliation or self-defense.

Of special note in this context, is that there are times a person can use force against others, and it isn’t just when they are defending themselves or using retaliatory force.

There are at least two types force you can use to protect yourself:

1. Self-defense from intentional murder or other crime.
2. Use of force to prevent an unintentional collision with another person. For instance, if you use force to stop someone who has tripped from falling into you and knocking you over.

My position is that terminating a pregnancy is like this second type of use of force. It’s not force used in self defense. It is force used to stop the purely reflexive act of a fetus in attaching itself to a mother’s body during pregnancy, or the act of removing it once it has reflexively attached itself to the mother’s body.

Why would a woman need to terminate a pregnancy? All pregnancies are inherently risky for a woman. Women still die in child birth in the first world.

If she becomes pregnant and decides that she doesn’t want to take that risk, then she cannot reason with the fetus to explain why she wants it to detach itself from her body. It’s a purely reflexive act, regardless of how developed a fetus’ brain is.

Abortion is analogous to self-defense. The minimum of force is being used to detach the fetus, similar to how the minimum of force is used to prevent someone from killing you.

Does it matter that the mother chose to have sex, while In the above scenario of someone tripping and falling into you, you didn’t choose to have someone fall on you?

I would note that this would still justify abortion in the cases of rape. Since a woman who is raped didn’t choose to have sex in that scenario, my analogy is “spot on”.

At this point we are dancing around whether the fetus has any rights. What are rights? Why do we need them? This is where I and a religious advocate of rights part ways. We have fundamentally different definitions of “rights” and their basis.

Rights imply an autonomous actor who needs to take action to gain the values necessary for living. A fetus, by its very nature is physically attached to the mother. Choice doesn’t play a role in its existence.

If the mother could somehow transfer the fetus to an artificial womb, with no health danger to the mother, that would be something to consider, but we don’t have that technology yet. That means, for now, abortion is the only option for a woman who doesn’t want to risk her health with a pregnancy.

Parenthetically, I think a woman shouldn’t be able to force a man who isn’t her husband to pay child support. If a woman wants the father of her child to pay for her child, she should enter into a contract with him. I also think a man should have no right to see a child or be a part of its life without a contract with the mother. This “contract” is basically what marriage is about -or should be under an ideal political system. (That, and the sharing of one’s finances and property with the other person.)

At this point the more wild-eyed will go with the ‘reductio ad absurdum ‘ argument: “If abortion is okay, then you must think killing newborn babies is okay, since they cannot take care of themselves and there is a health-cost imposed on the mother by that too. Furthermore, maybe science will show that the rational faculty doesn’t fully develop until age 2.”

My response is: 1) the baby is detached, biologically, from the mother after birth. 2) Given that fact of biological detachment, it makes sense to “draw the line”, legally, there and presume a baby is capable of rational thought, even if such capacity may not still arise for some time. These are the minimum criteria I hold for an organism being accorded individual rights: 1, A biologically distinct organism, that, 2, has a rational faculty or capacity of some sort, necessitating that you can deal with it on the basis of reason and persuasion, unlike the lower animals that you can only deal with by means of force.

Should the “line” for when abortion is legal be drawn somewhere before birth? Say, at seven months, or even six? Should some regulation of the types of abortions, or when abortions are allowed prior to 9 months, be in place? I am willing to entertain those sorts of arguments. (Assuming no unusually high level of health threat to the mother, or some massive birth defect is discovered, after the general prohibition date, in which case there should be a judicial exception of some sort.)

Would I personally want my wife or girlfriend to have an abortion? Assuming that: One, she hadn’t been raped, two, she had no unusually high level of health risk, and, three, the fetus had no birth defects, then I wouldn’t want her to do it. I’d ask her not to, and try to talk her out of it. But, at the end of the day, I recognize it’s not my body, it’s not my health risk, and it’s not my decision.

Does it ever make sense to use the word “Nigger”?

This video was of interest to me. It is about a video-blogger in England, who I occasionally enjoy listening to, “Sargon of Akkad”. The video is by another video-blogger whose videos I almost always enjoy, “Atheism Is Unstoppable”. AIU’s “routine” sort of reminds me of an “Atheist Rush Limbaugh”, and I cannot count the number of times his stuff has made me laugh out loud while I was watching it on the stair-master at the gym. His commentary on race and race issues is also thoughtful and properly nuanced, in my opinion. Is AIU’s stuff always “deep philosophical commentary”? No, he’s primarily a satirist and humorist, but there is a place for that. Do I agree with everything he says? No. He’s a gun control advocate, and a Democrat, but that’s not his focus.

In the video, AIU comments on the controversy surrounding what Sargon said. Apparently, the later told some white people that they were behaving like “white niggers”, and that got him banned from Patreon. (I don’t know all the details, and I’m not sufficiently interested to research it.)

Using race-based or sex-based denunciations will draw a lot of criticism. Why focus on the race or gender of the person rather than the bad behavior? Additionally, any “curse word” tends to have the problem of being “canned denunciation” that doesn’t really explain what is wrong with someone. Calling a person an “asshole” doesn’t specify what you find wrong with them. Usually, when you call someone an “asshole” it’s because they are boorish, socially uncouth, impolite, or being unnecessarily hostile. If you really want to morally judge someone, then it makes sense to say what is actually wrong with them, using more precise language. This will help you to identify what it is that they are doing that has drawn your ire. However, in casual conversation, most of us will use some form of curse words to describe someone. I have certainly done that. I would not use these words in a formal denunciation or critique of some person, but, assuming the context of casual conversation, lets ask this question: Does it ever make sense to call a black person a “nigger”?

First, lets look at the dictionary definitions of three words: “bastard”, “bitch” and “nigger”:

BASTARD

1 : an illegitimate child
2 : something that is spurious (see spurious sense 3a), irregular, inferior, or of questionable origin The … residence is a bastard of the architectural era which followed the building of the Imperial Hotel …— Hugh Byas
3a : an offensive or disagreeable person —used as a generalized term of abuse Then they made him an officer and right away he became the biggest bastard you ever saw.— Thomas Heggen
b : man, fellow … the nicest thing an Aussie can call you is a bloody fine bastard.— Wilson Hicks

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bastard

1.   a person born of unmarried parents; an illegitimate child.
Slang.
2.   a vicious, despicable, or thoroughly disliked person: Some bastard slashed the tires on my car
3.   a person, especially a man: The poor bastard broke his leg.
something irregular, inferior, spurious, or unusual.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/bastard

BITCH

1.   a female dog: The bitch won first place in the sporting dogs category.
2.   a female of canines generally.
3.   Slang
a.   a malicious, unpleasant, selfish person, especially a woman
b.   a lewd woman.
c.   Disparaging and Offensive . any woman
4.Slang . a person who is submissive or subservient to someone, usually in a humiliating way: Tom is so her bitch—he never questions what she decides.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/bitch

1: the female of the dog or some other carnivorous mammals The behavioral endocrinology of both male dogs and bitches is quite unique and differs from that of most other mammals …— Ian Dunbar — compare dog entry 1 sense 1b
2 a informal, often offensive : a malicious, spiteful, or overbearing woman
b informal, offensive — used as a generalized term of abuse and disparagement for a woman
3 informal : something that is extremely difficult, objectionable, or unpleasant Aspirin overdoses are a bitch to treat.— Pamela Grim July and August were always a bitch in the subway.— Harold Robbins
4 informal : complaint “My biggest bitch with all of CBS’ golf is there’s no personalization.”— Chuck Howard

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bitch

NIGGER

offensive; see usage paragraph below —used as an insulting and contemptuous term for a black person
offensive; see usage paragraph below —used as an insulting and contemptuous term for a member of any dark-skinned race
now often offensive; see usage paragraph below : a member of a class or group of people who are systematically subjected to discrimination and unfair treatment it’s time for somebody to lead all of America’s niggers … all the people who feel left out of the political process— Ron Dellums

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nigger

Slang : Extremely Disparaging and Offensive .
a contemptuous term used to refer to a black person.
a contemptuous term used to refer to a member of any dark-skinned people.
Slang : Extremely Disparaging and Offensive . a contemptuous term used to refer to a person of any racial orethnic origin regarded as contemptible, inferior, ignorant, etc.
a victim of prejudice similar to that suffered by black people; a person who is economically, politically, orsocially disenfranchised.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/nigger

I have used all of these three terms before in casual conversation. Would I use it in writing a philosophical or scientific treatise? No. Mainly because they are all slang, and their meaning is not sufficiently precise in that context.

I think this imprecision comes through with the above dictionary definitions of “nigger”. They focus on the word being a term of disparagement applied to all black people. But, I don’t use it in that sense. If I refer to a black person as a “nigger”, it’s because they are behaving in some manner that is socially impolite, or criminal, or violent. OJ Simpson is a nigger for murdering his wife, Ron Goldman, and then committing armed robbery. Neil deGrasse Tyson isn’t a nigger because he hasn’t done any of those things.

I guess the criticism of my position could be that I should pick a word that focuses on the fact that a black person is a criminal, and that is “race-neutral”. I could refer to OJ Simpson as a “bastard” or a “thug”. But, this ignores an essential aspect of our society today. That is the disproportionate amount of crime being committed by black people. Do I think black people have some sort of “crime gene” that makes them commit crimes? There is no evidence of that -and it seems to fly in the face of human consciousness being volitional. So, I cannot accept that explanation for the disproportionate amount of black crime. However, I do think it is cultural. Given the historical background of most black people and their familial lineage, violent criminality is more acceptable in the minds of a sizable portion of the black population, than in the minds of the same proportion of white people. Cultures can certainly change over time. The Nordic people are no longer violent brigands going around raping, pillaging and murdering like they did 500 years ago. (Back then, they were called “vikings”.) But, given the current culture of a sizable proportion of black people today, any rational person will recognize that violent criminality is a problem for that racial group that needs to be addressed. Use of the word “nigger” in casual conversation, as in: “That guy is acting like a nigger.” or “He’s a nigger, so I don’t want to hang around him.” can be understood to mean: “That black person is behaving like a disproportionate number of black people behave, and is being criminal.” It is a recognition of a fact of reality: black crime rates that are disproportionate to their size of the population.

Also note that I’m not particularly “wedded” to referring to boorish or criminal black people as “niggers”. I don’t have the level of certainty about this that I have about being an atheist, or that the concept of “morality” only makes sense for those who want to live. I am open to the possibility that I might be wrong on the subject, and would listen to a cogent argument against my position -as long as it doesn’t consist of: “you’re mean”, “you’re racist”, “people won’t like you”, or some other vapid denunciation that has no meaningful content.

In practice, should you call black people niggers at work, or on the street? Generally, that’s probably not in your own rational self-interest. At work, you will likely get fired. On the street, it will likely be considered a provocation justifying violence against you in the eyes of most people, including the police. We live in a society where the fact that somebody’s ancestors were slaves seems to justify their violent and boorish behavior. But, if, in the privacy of your own car, you call the black person laying into his horn like a lunatic in the car behind you, at the stop light that just turned green half a second ago, a “nigger”- I certainly won’t hold it against you.

The Objectivist Concepts of “Individual Rights” and “Initiation of Physical Force”

“A ‘right’ is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context.” (“Man’s Rights”, _The Virtue of Selfishness_, Ayn Rand)

Important concepts in this definition include:

“Moral principle”
“Defining and sanctioning”
“Freedom of action”
“Social Context”

(1) What is “a moral principle”? – For Rand it is a system of principles to guide your choices in the furtherance and pursuit of your ultimate value -which is your own life. The purpose of morality is to maintain your life. For instance, you need to cultivate patterns and methods of thinking that will correspond the contents of your mind to the nature of reality. This is necessary because reality is what it is, which means you must learn how things work in order to control them, if you want to live. This is “rationality”. You learn what makes plants grow, and then you rearrange the material in the world to more effectively make the edible ones grow -which is farming. You learn which animals are dangerous and aggressive, and then you learn ways to avoid or kill them. You learn what types of wood or stone is strong enough to build structures out of to protect yourself from the elements, and then you arrange them into shelter.

(2) What is “freedom of action”? – Freedom of action means the absence of physical impediments. For instance, if you are traveling in a particular direction, and there is a mountain obstructing your forward progress, that mountain is restricting you from moving further in that direction. If you see a panther down a particular trail, that animal is restricting your freedom of action because it is a threat to your continued survival if you come into close proximity with it. In both cases, you are confronted with some sort of “physical force”. The mountain’s mere presence blocks your forward path, and the panther can maul you, causing injury or death -which is also physical force. With respect to other human beings, they can restrict your freedom of action by the same means: They can physically restrain you or they can threaten to use some sort of physical force similar to the panther.

(3) What is “a social context”? – This means interaction with other human beings, as opposed to interacting with an animal or a mountain. Human beings can use force against you to deprive you of the freedom of action that is necessary to maintain your life. A human can physically take away the crops that you’ve grown, or they can threaten to harm or kill you with a gun or a knife if you don’t give them your food. However, interacting with other human beings also provide you with many benefits. You can trade what you have made for what they have made. A farmer can trade some of the crops he has grown for a song that a musician wrote. A doctor can trade his services for the services of an auto mechanic, and so on, and so on. This allows for the division of labor, which increases every person’s overall material well-being. This social context of trade can only go on if each individual knows that he is secure to keep the values he has produced. He must know that when he parts with his values, he is doing so voluntarily and not because someone has used physical force to deprive him of his values. In other words, he has to have his freedom of action respected, in a social context.

(4) What is “defining and sanctioning”? – There are certain broad categories of values that all human beings need in order to live. There can be many variations and individual peculiarities within those categories, but everyone must satisfy these needs somehow and to some extent, by virtue of their nature as living organisms and as human beings. Everyone needs some sort of protection from the elements. Everyone needs a certain amount of food. Everyone needs to maintain their body within certain metabolic requirements. (We all need a certain amount of oxygen, warmth, atmospheric pressure, etc.) Others have to recognize and respect our desire to live. Others have to recognize and respect the actions necessary to create the material values we need in order to maintain our lives. This is what it means to “sanction” something. The dictionary defines “sanction” in the following ways:

(1) “a formal decree”

(2) “a solemn agreement”

(3) “something that makes an oath binding”

(4) “the detriment, loss of reward, or coercive intervention annexed to a violation of a law as a means of enforcing the law”

(5) “a consideration, principle, or influence (as of conscience) that impels to moral action or determines moral judgment”

(6) “a mechanism of social control for enforcing a society’s standards”

(7) “explicit or official approval, permission, or ratification”

(8) “an economic or military coercive measure adopted usually by several nations in concert for forcing a nation violating international law to desist or yield to adjudication”

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sanction

Most of these definitions involve other’s recognition and agreement that something is “right” or “appropriate”. This is why Ayn Rand said:

“The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man’s rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life.” (_Atlas Shrugged_, Ayn Rand, emphasis added.)

A question in my mind at this point is: Where does Ayn Rand’s concept of “the initiation of physical force” come in? Do you need a concept of “initiation of physical force” in order to come up with the concept of “individual rights”?

This question came up in my mind because someone once said to me that Ayn Rand’s concept of “individual rights” and “initiation of physical force” were somewhat “circular”. They implied that Rand was saying “individual rights” were the “absence of the initiation of physical force”, and that “initiation of physical force” was “whatever violates individual rights” -which would seem like circular reasoning.

My best thinking on this topic at this point is this: you logically derive a concept of “individual rights”, which includes a concept of “physical force used to deprive someone of a value”, but NOT necessarily an “initiation of physical force”. I think one more concept is needed to logically derive the idea of “initiation of physical force”. You must mentally subdivide the concept of “use of physical force” into at least two categories of “use of physical force”. On the one hand, there is the “use of physical force” to deprive another person of their life, to rob them, or to enslave them. This can be already understood as part of understanding the concept of individual rights. Another type of “use of physical force” is to stop someone who is using physical force to deprive another person of their life, or to rob them, or to enslave them. The distinction between these two types of physical force is that one must occur before the other can occur. There would be no need to stop someone from depriving another person of their life unless someone is already using physical force to deprive another person of their life. So, the distinction is one of “time” or “causation”. This is why Ayn Rand describes one type of force as an “initiation of physical force”, while the other is “retaliatory force”:

“The basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics is: no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. No man—or group or society or government—has the right to assume the role of a criminal and initiate the use of physical compulsion against any man. Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. The ethical principle involved is simple and clear-cut: it is the difference between murder and self-defense. A holdup man seeks to gain a value, wealth, by killing his victim; the victim does not grow richer by killing a holdup man. The principle is: no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force.” (“The Objectivist Ethics”, _The Virtue of Selfishness_, Ayn Rand)

Furthermore, since people must stop the use of force by others that would deprive them of values by retaliating against anyone who is using force in that manner, that too becomes a “…a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context…”. In other words, the retaliatory use of force becomes an “individual right”. As most Americans would say: you have a “right to self-defense”. That right is “defined and sanctioned” with things like the English Common Law right of self-defense, and the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. (This includes both a right of self-defense from murder, rape and robbery by common criminals, and also a right of self-defense against enslavement by tyrannical government.)

At this point, someone might say: “Okay, I understand why I need to have my right to life respected in order to live, which means I need others to keep from initiating physical force against me, but why should I recognize the rights of others?”

I think, to a large extent, social ostracism would prevent someone from violating individual rights. If other people view you as a rights-violator, they are going to do what they can to avoid you, which means you will have no friends, no lovers, and no business partners. This means you loose the benefits of most trade and social interaction with other human beings. Additionally, others aren’t going to sit by and quietly let you violate their rights. They are going to defend themselves, which means you’re in a state of perpetual armed conflict with the rest of mankind.

Most criminals do not use physical force to this extent, however. They want to live by reason and persuasion with some people, at least some of the time, and they want to keep their rights-violations hidden from the majority of mankind. Essentially, they want the benefits of living in a rights-respecting society most of the time, and they want to be seen by others as rights-respectors. A criminal just wants to “cheat”, sometimes, when they think they can get away with it. This is where I think government comes in. An essential role of government is to prevent the temptation to “cheat” by systematically exposing anyone who does so. (I don’t think this is the only role of government, but it is a role.) We all agree to establish this institution that will help to prevent any temptation to violate rights in any given situation by establishing a known “price” for anyone who gets caught.

The Fundamental Flaw of Environmentalism

People will tell me that the “science” of “Climate Change” is settled.

First, what they mean by “climate change” isn’t clear. Do they mean we’ve had ice ages and sustained warming periods where average global temperatures have gone up?

If that’s what they mean, the geological evidence for past ice ages seems pretty strong to me.

On the other hand, if they mean human beings are generating more CO2, and this is causing average global temperatures to go up more than they would without this activity, then I want to know how they know this. Ultimately, they’re going to say that this knowledge is based on observations and measurements, such as measuring the temperature of sea water on a daily basis. This knowledge is combined with what we know about the nature of CO2, which is that more of it seems to trap more sunlight than if there is less of it.

However, even if this is true, when you suggest any sort of solution that involves the use of technology and voluntary human cooperation, they will say that will not work. For instance, if sea levels are rising due to increasing average global temperatures, maybe the best solution is to just build dikes and reclaim land like the Dutch have done in the past. We could also put giant mirrors in orbit around the Earth to reduce the amount of sunlight entering the Earth’s atmosphere, thereby reducing average global temperatures. (https://www.livescience.com/22202-space-mirrors-global-warming.html )
An even simpler, and presently available, solution is nuclear power, which seems to have a very small “carbon footprint”. (https://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/co2-emissions1.jpg)

If you start suggesting any of these solutions to an Environmentalist, however, they will always say that these scientific and engineering solutions will fail. For instance, they will say the dikes will break, the giant orbiting mirrors will trigger another ice age, and nuclear power plants will melt down. Why do they always see failure in every technological and engineering solution?

Because they believe human beings are so limited in their mental capacity that they are incapable of producing a viable technological solution, much less in engaging in voluntary, non-coercive and non-governmental projects to solve any actual problem.

This points to a fundamental aspect of the Environmentalist ideology. They believe human beings are not capable of the production of the values we need to survive. And, why do they believe we cannot produce the values we need to survive? Because they believe the human mind is impotent, which means they believe that the human mind is not able to understand or comprehend reality. Human reason is impotent to the environmentalist.

But, if the human mind is not able to understand or comprehend reality, then how can they be sure that “climate change” is real? That involves the use of human reasoning, which they’ve said is impotent to solve any actual problem. (Or, they simply think human reason is inherently bad, and that we should live at stone-age levels of technology, which is functionally the same: anti-reason and anti-science.)

It’s one or the other. Either science and the human mind are capable of recognizing and solving problems, or it is not, in which case they should stop making proclamations about how “the science is settled” on man-made climate change.

This is the fundamental flaw of the ideology Environmentalism: They want to have their cake of science and reason at the same time they’re eating it.

Comparing Interracial Crime Statistics

I try to be very careful with statistics. First, there is the possibility that someone has actually misrepresented the underlying data. Second, even if the underlying data is correct, it is easy for a statistician with an agenda to use mathematical techniques to show results that don’t really give a correct context for the data.

When it comes to levels of crime committed by different racial groups, it’s really hard to find reliable data. (My theory on that is because most left-leaning academics know what it will show, and they don’t want the public to know it.)

I knew that black people commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime. (That is, they are only about 13% of the population, but they commit more than 13% of the violent crimes.) What I was having trouble finding was numbers on interracial crime -that is the number of black on white violent crimes and the number of white on black violent crimes.

Thanks to an article , I found good credible data from the FBI on interracial murders. So, for instance, in 2015, of the 3,167 white people murdered, 500 of those victims were murdered by a black person. In 2015, of the 2,664 black people murdered, 229 of them were murdered by a white person. (Intra-racial murder is much more prevalent for both groups. In other words, most whites are murdered by other whites, and most blacks are murdered by other blacks. But, that is not what I am focusing on here.)

So, there were 500 murders of white people committed by a black person in 2015 and there were 229 murders of a black person committed by a white person. Right away, that number is clearly disproportional from the number of black people in the United States. Since black people make up only about 13% of the population, the fact 500 white people were murdered by blacks, while only 229 black people were murdered by whites is remarkable.

But, I don’t know exactly how to compare these two numbers. My probability and statistics skills are not that strong. One possible way to compare them is to take the total number of black on white murders (500) and divide that by the total number of black people in America. (Roughly, 40.5 Million). Similarly, take the number of white on black murders (229) and divide that by the number of white people in America. (Roughly 233.7 Million). This will give you:

500/40.5 Million= 0.00001235 and 229/233.7 Million = 0.00000098

Then, you turn both of these into percentages by multiplying them by 100, which is: 0.001235% and 0.000098%

My thinking is that this is like rolling a six-sided die. The probability that you will roll a 6 is 1/6. The probability that you will roll a 5 or a 6 on one roll is 1/3.

You can think of the statistics on homicide above as like rolling two different dice. One die is a 40.5 Million-sided die. This is the black on white crime die. There are 500 “sides” of that die that would be a black on white crime, while the rest of the sides are all the black people who don’t murder white people. Similarly, there is another 233.7 Million-sided die, and on that one, there are 299 sides that are white people who commit a white on black murder. If you make that assumption, then the way to compare the two probabilities seems like it would be to take the first percentage, 0.001235% and divide it by the second percentage, 0.000098%. The result is 0.001235%/0.000098% = 12.6. To me, this means the probability of a black on white murder is 12.6 times as great as a white on black murder.

However, I am not sure this reasoning makes sense entirely. I am assuming that *every* black on white murder and *every* white on black murder is committed by different people. In other words, I’m assuming that of the 500 black on white murders, each murder was committed by a different black person. It’s possible that the *same* black person committed all of the 500 black on white murders in 2015. You cannot tell from these numbers alone. (Same for the white on black murders.)

It’s also possible that I don’t understand probability calculations very well (which I don’t), and I’m making some other mistake. I wish more people would discuss this matter, and try to come up with good numbers, but the data, much less an analysis of it, seems to be almost completely non-existent. (Like I said, I think most people know what the results of the analysis would be, and they don’t like to think about it, or they have a political agenda.)

Dancing With Black Women

Some time back, a friend of mine pointed me to a web site in which the author called white men racist for not asking black women to dance in the East Coast Swing dancing scene. (Rampant leftism is one of the reasons I’ve largely dropped out of this dance style.) I ignore it when someone calls me racist. (Or sexist.) The term has lost whatever meaning it once had, and is now just a way for black people to try to make you feel guilty so that they can get something from you that they didn’t otherwise earn or deserve. I don’t owe black people anything, and I’m not going to pretend that I like a black person when I don’t, just to avoid being called a “racist”, but I digress.

Whether you should dance with anyone really depends on your goals for dancing. I dance because I enjoy it, and I need a partner to do so. When I ask someone to dance, 9 times out of 10, it’s because I want to dance, not because I’m attracted to the person. Now, does that mean I’ve never asked a woman to dance because I was interested in her sexually or romantically? No, but, that’s no different than me striking up small talk with someone, or asking them about the book that they’re reading in a coffee shop. Yes, I sometimes do those things to converse with a woman I’m attracted to, but I also sometimes ask someone about the book that they’re reading because I’m interested in the book that they’re reading. I may have no attraction to them. Basically, sometimes, there is a “sexual subtext” or “agenda” that I have when I interact with a woman regarding something, but not always. I might have a non-sexual motive for it. If most people introspect, I think they’ll see they do the same thing. Sometimes that object in your mouth is a phallic symbol, and other times, a cigar is just a cigar.

Other people may have different goals from me for dancing, and that is fine. They may be there looking for a girlfriend. There is absolutely nothing wrong with dating being your primary or only agenda in dancing. It’s your life, and you have to live it. As long as you aren’t initiating physical force, being dishonest, or otherwise being unjust (in a “non-sjw sense”), I have very little interest in what you do.

If you are dancing to get a girlfriend, then, of course, you are going to want to dance with women you are sexually attracted to. Most white men, for the most part, are sexually attracted to white women, so that is who they are going to ask to dance. Nothing wrong with that, and if someone is tempted to say this is “racist”, then they need to rethink their definition of racism. Being attracted to whites is no different than being attracted to blondes, or brunettes, or women who are only attracted to taller guys. It’s called a preference. Everyone has physical preferences, and if they don’t, then they are making the extraordinary claim that they would be happy dating a brain being kept alive in a vat of nutrient fluid.

I, personally, have no problem dancing with black women. But, like I said, that’s because I’m there primarily to dance, not to meet a girlfriend.

But, the woman for me when it comes to dating is probably going to be white for several reasons. I avoid dating black women, not because I’ve never seen an attractive black woman, although that is *very* rare for me, but simply because I find that there is too much cultural baggage associated with the average American black. There is a disproportionate amount of crime being committed by blacks, and there seem to be higher rates of mental illness there. Additionally, I’ve seen studies that seem to say that the level of spousal-abuse is higher in the black community, and that there appears to be more domestic violence committed in inter-racial couples than mono-racial white couples. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3611980/ )
Even if a particular black woman were none of these these things, when you marry, you are, in a sense, marrying that person’s family. So, you are more likely to encounter a criminal or a mentally ill person in a black person’s family. This means that your children are more likely to encounter a criminal or mentally ill person in your black spouse’s family. Additionally, most blacks that I encounter want to play some amount of the “make white people feel guilty” game. So, I wouldn’t want to put up with her or her family trying to make me feel guilty for being white. (Asian women and Hispanic women are also women I am attracted to with some frequency, and would probably date -because I currently see no evidence that they are different from white women on levels of mental illness, criminality, or spousal abuse.)

Are there black women out there that would be none of this, and would be great to marry? Possibly, but that number is exceedingly small once you take all of the above into account, and there is a great expense and “search cost” associated with dating to find even the right person in just the pool of available white women. There is also “opportunity cost” – every black person you go out on a date with on a Saturday is a missed opportunity to go out on a date with a more-likely-to-be-suitable white person. Why would you want to add additional search cost and expense to find the rare exception among black people, unless it’s about something besides finding a suitable romantic partner? (I have my suspicions about the motives of a lot of white people who date black people, but that’s a whole other blog post.)

I’ve concluded it’s easier to just have a policy of not dating black women and stick to white women in order to reduce search costs.

The Riddle of Gun Control; the Even Bigger Riddle of Open Borders

Friends who are left of center have asked me about my position on gun control in light of the shooting in New Zealand. (I’ve titled this blog entry based on a podcast by Sam Harris called: “The Riddle of the Gun”)

As I’ve said before, I think no one, including the State, should initiate physical force against other people. The purpose of the state is to stop force-initiators by using sufficient physical force to stop that initiation, or to stop subsequent initiations by the same person(s). A person who commits murder should be locked up (or executed, depending on your view on capital punishment). A person who robs, rapes, or commits assault is a force initiator, and the state should use retaliatory force to stop them. Without getting bogged down in minutia here, a person who starts planning to murder, and takes objective steps to carry out the plan is also a force initiator. So, a person who buys bomb-making material, and says that he plans to blow up someone has already initiated physical force, and the State, if it has probable cause that was the bomber’s intent, can arrest and prosecute him for that. If the State shows that was the bombers intent beyond a reasonable doubt, he should go to prison for a time.

I’m consistent. I think people should be free to immigrate to this country. Stopping them from crossing the border, absent some objective knowledge that they intend to initiate physical force once they are here, would be an initiation of physical force. (If the state sees a known terrorist crossing the border, that is different, just like the bomber I already discussed. The mere crossing of the border, combined with the terrorists’ past actions, constitutes an initiation of physical force, and he can rightly be arrested. I won’t get bogged down in the minutia of that, either, here.)

I am okay with the statistical fact that immigration of Muslims leads to more Islamic terrorism in a country, because: (1) I think there are more narrowly-tailored social and law-enforcement options that don’t violate the rights of people who just want to live in America and have peaceful, productive lives; and, (2), it is just the price we pay for a free society. It’s the same as having a free press, which leads to copy-cat killings, or having a 4th Amendment right to be free from arbitrary search and seizure causes some criminals to go uncaptured. These facts don’t mean we should eliminate the First Amendment or the Fourth Amendment. Similarly, the right to own and carry guns for self-defense shouldn’t be abrogated on the mere fact that, statistically, someone will commit a crime with a gun.

But, most of my left-of-center friends are not that consistent. They are fine with allowing large numbers of Muslims to come into the country, even though, statistically, a certain number of those Muslims are certain to commit acts of violence in the name of their religion, once they get here. (Don’t talk to me about how there are more domestic terrorists in America than Islamic terrorists. That is dropping context. We could still stop *some* terrorism by completely closing our borders to Muslim immigration, even if the domestic variety continued at the same rate or level as before.)

When it comes to guns, my left-of-center friends say: “If we save even one life, it’s worth it.” When it comes to Muslim immigration, they say: “Don’t be racist.” This is because it’s easier than trying to reconcile the contradiction between their belief in free immigration and their opposition to the right to self-defense.