Taking a Centrist, Economic Look at Gun Control

A few years ago I read an excellent article on bigthink.com(that i really cant seem to find) that suggested Americans should reframe large political issues from their moral foundations to economic issues to offer a way forward. That is we should rethink gridlocked political debates as utilitarian, pragmatic math problems. 

I have tried to do just that with the gun control debate.

Strict gun control proponents cite all too common school shootings, inner city violence and stray bullets killing innocent bystanders as reasons to push stricter gun laws.

Gun enthusiasts cite their 2nd Amendment right and their right to protect their families as reasons to push for little to no regulation of guns. 

These are both sound but moral arguments that at the surface seem difficult to reconcile. Perhaps an economist would disagree. 

Economists are great at asking what is at stake in a debate and doing a cost- benefit analysis of what things are worth. So lets try this thought experiment. 

Firstly lets figure out what it is we are talking about and differentiate between different types of weapons. Lets draw out an extreme comparison between an m1 Abrams tank on the one hand and a kitchen knife on the other. 

	Pros (Utility)	Cons (Societal Cost)
Kitchen Knife	Cut cucumbers, open pickle jars, slice steak	You could go out in public and start slicing people, but you wouldn't be able slice very many people before you get taken down
M1 Abrams Tank	jackshit	If you got into a tank, you could probably kill a lot of people and blow up a lot of shit before you die

The utility for a kitchen knife far outweighs any potential societal risks and the opposite is true for the M1 Abrams tank. So for these very common sense reasons there has never been an American argument about the legality of these two items. But now between these two clear cut extremes where does a semi-automatic assault rifle fit in?

The answer to this question is surely different depending on who is answering and where they live.

	Pros (Utility)	Cons (Societal Cost)
Semi Automatic Rifles in rural Alaska	Hunting, Shooting Bears, Survival	Negligible
Semi Automatic Rifles in Inner City Chicago	Could be used to protect from home intruders	School Shootings, Stray bullets killing little girls on the way home from school, gang violence, use against police officers

There is a practical and intuitive difference in the value of a semi-automatic rifle between these communities. Americans on both sides of this debate must realize this.

So must politicians. The job of national policy is to craft law for the greater good of the American people while still encompassing these disparate realities. For that reason most of gun regulation is left to local legislatures. However given the rise in the number of mass shootings local politicians must take an honest economic look at the societal value of guns and abandon their traditional hard line moral stances.

Why Hillary Clinton is the Better Choice for Democrats this Primary Season

The fundamental question in politics as my old professor Bruce Smith would say is “What should we do?” The job of American lawmakers is to make big decisions hopefully for the common good of our country. Now if you ask most Americans we will tell you our government does a pretty mediocre job at that. No fucking surprise. 

Like many liberals, I am a soft optimist. I believe Obama has made short progress but his efforts must incite a larger push for social reform by the next in office. That is I believe in increased efforts to combat global climate change, a deeper commitment to basic social services such as infrastructure in low income communities and basic planned parenthood benefits for women as well as a larger push to end human rights violations such as mass incarceration and unjust policing.

However simply agreeing with me on these social issues will not make a successful leader. Being president is a hard job. Foreign policy decisions will always be difficult. Moderation between both party extremists and an eclectic range of American realities will always be necessary. Most importantly the position will always be heavily scrutinized and rational and well informed decisions must be made in spite of the pressure. 

These demands on the position are what make Hillary Clinton not only the more convenient but also the more qualified choice for Democrats in this primary season against Bernie Sanders. There is no doubt Sanders is the more progressive and ambitious choice but while that may quench our thirst to hear a passionate ideolog that will not fulfill the need for a flat footed American leader. 

Clinton’s political sword has been sharpened in ways that Sanders’ has not. Between the shit-show of the Benghazi attacks and the pseudo-scandal of her e-mail accounts Clinton has felt the wrath of right wing crazies, the 24 hour American news cycle and political armchair gurus. In spite of this she has ran a firm and prudent campaign based around sensible and honest progress. 

Sanders on the other hand has lofty ideals with little to no practical application. If Republicans refused to pass a budget when they could not repeal The Affordable Care Act or currently lose their shit when they just hear the words planned parenthood how applicable are Sanders’ ideas for free college tuition? How sane is Bernie’s pacifism in the face of the backlash caused by the Iran Deal or even any real issues dealing with the Middle East? I think this dude is in fantasyland… worse than Rand Paul. 

Bernie Sanders is a nice guy with some cool ideas however Clinton is the leader with the character to not only push social reform but also to make tough decisions . Sanders might make a better friend that mumbles pleasantries but Clinton will make a better president that redefines Obama’s vision and makes firm, well-informed moderate decisions. 

The Practical Purpose of Philosophy. Defending Applied Philosophy from the Rest of the World

Anyone who has ever studied philosophy has at some point or another encountered, if not been cornered by… some of these:

What are you going to do with that?

You gonna be asking me why I want fries with that when you’re working at Burger King?

When is the last time you did anything productive in a philosophy class?

These people have a point. Philosophy degrees are superbly efficient academia to burger king pipelines. Philosophers do not actually ever produce any physical things. Philosophy, by its nature, is a sort of impractical art form, like creative writing, painting, studio art… and whatever other humanities might come to your mind. 

Now I am not looking to get into an overly technical discussion with my philosophy friends here but Philosophy, in one of its simpler conceptions put forth by the prestigious “thefreedictionary.com,” is the

“Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.” 

So some of the things us philosophers might do using just our cool logic machines aka our brains is ask:

Why?

What is the right thing to do?

What should we do?

Does that make sense?

Now you might think I am dancing around the question of the practical purpose of philosophy, but think for a second. In what contexts is it necessary to ask and try to answer some of these questions? Try and think of one or two. Alright my turn:

Why are some people racist?

Can you imagine if no one in American history ever seriously posed this question? Where would we be? Social Philosophy

Should the only available qualified cardiac surgeon in the country operate after he or she had 2 drinks if the patient would otherwise die?

Damn heavy shit! Idk… Medical Ethics.

What should the medical staff do if one of their patients with terminal cancer tries to commit suicide?

Medical Ethics.

What should we do as a country? What’s good with gun laws, abortion, taxes, the middle east, privacy, torture and all that good stuff?

That’s the job of the government and big homie Obama to ask every day. Democrats and Republicans disagree on what we should do; idealistically however this is a good disagreement because they are both concerned with what the right thing for the future of the country is. Political Philosophy

Should we fracture underground shale for the hopes of finding natural gas?

Man… hipsters and republicans at my college sure disagree on this one but I happen to think it’s a damn good question that some reason and logic needs to address. Environmental Ethics.

Most people will not argue that these questions and their answers are trivial pursuits. Their answers determine the genocide or the sincere respect for an entire race, a patient’s life or death, and a nation’s decision of whether to investment of young men and women in a regional war.

The common complaint against philosophy and these questions is that there is no definitive answer to them. Of course this is true, but imagine if no one really thought about these things, no one really cared to really rationally assess racism? Or the right things to do as an individual… or a country? What if we just dismissed such questions as too large to really answer? The ideas that inform and answer some of these large questions necessarily shape the actions of us as individuals and as a collective (different levels of collectives), so rationally thinking about these questions in appropriate philosophy swagstyle, I believe, should be commonplace for us all to do better things and become better people. It is just the job of philosophers to think a little harder than most, perhaps too hard at times.

Rethinking Charity...

      Jessica Jackley is the founder of Kiva- the online microloan organization that allows people to issue small loans to people living in poverty with small grassroots businesses via the internet. The idea is to provide access to loans for people who would normally never pass a credit check or qualify for a loan from an average bank, but are innovators with a business initiative. Jessica Jackley built off of Nobel Peace Prize winner Mohammad Yunus’ orginal model for microfinance and put it online and made it more interactive. Jackley however, I believe revolutionized microfinance and redefined the terms of charity. My last blogpost was a piece on the microfinance and all you need to know about it(It’s a little dry and descriptive so read it if youd like). To understand what I am going to try and to get at here, I think it is important to understand Jackley’s story. Jackley, in her 2010 Ted talk, starts by discussing her first confusing experiences with poverty and charity in Sunday school

       “I was six years old when I first heard stories about the poor. Now I didn’t hear these stories from the poor themselves, I heard them from my Sunday school teacher and Jesus, kind of via my Sunday school teacher. I remember learning that people who were poor needed something material- food, clothing, shelter- that they didn’t have. And I also was taught, coupled with that, that it was my job- this classroom of five and six year- old children- it was our job apparently, to help. This is what Jesus asked of us. And then he said, ‘What you do for the least of these you do for me.’ Now I was pretty psyched. I was very eager to to be useful in the world- I think we all have that feeling. And also, it was kind of news to me that God needed help. This was news to me, and it felt like it was a very important thing to get to participate in. But I aslo learned very soon thereafter that Jesus said, and I’m paraphrasing, the poor would always be with us. This frustrated and confused me; I felt like I had been given a homework assignment I had to do, and was excited to do, but no matter what I would do I would fail. So I felt confused, a little bit frustrated and angry, like maybe I’d misunderstood here. And I felt overwhelmed. And for the first time, I began to fear this groups of people and feel negative emotion towards a whole group of people. I imagined in my head, a kind of long line of individuals that were never going to go away, that would always be with us. They were always going to ask me to help them and give them things, which I was excited to do, but I didn’t know how it was going to work. And I didn’t know what would happen when I ran out of things to give, especially if the problem was never going away. In the years following, the other stories I heard were no more positive. For example, I saw pictures and images frequently of sadness and suffering. I heard about things that were going wrong in the lives of the poor. I heard about disease, I heard about war- they always seemed to be kind of related. And in general, I got this sort of idea that the poor in the world lived lives that were wrought with suffering and sadness, devastation, hopelessness.”

      Jackley continues and explains that as she got older she began to distance herself from the poor. She started to avoid seeing the pictures of Sub- Saharan African babies with their ribs showing and flies on their face, very simply because it made her feel bad, because they led to feelings of helplessness and insignificance. This of course is extremely common especially amongst Americans. She started to only give when ‘solutions were on sale.’ The sort of thing where you can donate 1 dollar and save ten dying babies. But she makes such a an absolutely mind blowing point when she says that she “gave when I was cornered, when it was difficult to avoid and I gave in, in general, when the negative emotions built up enough that I gave to relieve my own suffering, not someone else’s The truth be told, I was giving out of that place, not out of a genuine place of hope and excitement to help and of generosity. It became a transaction for me, because sort of a trade. I was purchasing something- I was buying my right to go on with my day and not be bothered by this bad news.” This is such a common feeling among many of us, that she has articulated so well. Giving should come from a sort of hope for the receiver. It should come from a desire to help, it should be a provision for decency. After all the purpose of charity is to help, and if charity is being done for an ulterior motive, then it is to some extent dishonest, and even cheapened to an extent. Charity is meant to help, you should want to see change and progress if youre intent on helping. All too often charity comes from a place of guilt, a place of avoidance. The difference between the two sort of feelings is an understanding and respect for the person’s very human and story whom you want to help. When you see the poor as faceless mass- a sort of statistic- a product, that you throw loose change and pocket lint at it- can you really say you give a shit? No. The same applies for larger sums of money. When big companies donate large sums to certain charity initiatives, they often do it mostly as a p.r. campaign, but the idea is the same- it is selfish charity. Charity for the sake of feeling better or for the sake of looking better- at the end of the day you’re in it for your damn self. This is why Kiva, and even the community service program at Allegheny places such a premium on stories. The human story. If you donate 50 cents but look after the difference those two quarters have made, and you look to take an interest in someone’s story and try to incorporate it into your own you are also donating a little dignity and self-respect. I also think you can call yourself more charitable than half of the ceos writing million dollar checks to charities. Taking time to listen to, internalize and engage with the stories of the poor that you want to help is just an essential aspect of an honest desire to help. Things like being a big brother or sister or even just taking the time to have a genuine conversation with your cleaning lady (or cleaning bro) are the keys to humanizing charity. I think giving a shit (also known as caring) is such a rare and valuable resource these days. As I mentioned in my discussion about social power, people with less money have less social influence, less people want to listen and talk with them. This is unfortunate because they are very often so much more creative, thoughtful, interesting and have so much more character than your upper middle class suburban friends. Also very interestingly, consistently people who have less money test higher for empathetic and lower for apathetic personality traits and people who have more test lower for empathetic and higher for apathetic personality traits.

Lets make charity less about money and more about humanity.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/jessica_jackley_poverty_money_and_love.html