Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Remaining Silent
I hereby publically assert my right to remain silent based on the Fifth Amendment regardless of any interpretation to the contrary. I have been advised to never speak to law enforcement without talking to an attorney first. I reserve the right to say certain things to law enforcement such as but not limited to “I choose to remain silent” or "can I go now" without abrogating the assertion of any rights made herein.
Why do I make this public assertion of rights, and why should everyone do so? Here is a typical Miranda warning:
“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you?”
Notice that this version of the warning says anything you say “will” be used against you. In our police state, it is clear that anything any person says to law enforcement (including a denial, or in light of the recent court decision, remaining silent) will be twisted and/or taken out of context in order to convict an innocent person of some crime or another of which he or she is innocent. In classic form, law enforcement will try to smear you in the news by saying that you are non-cooperative. When you hear in the news that the police said someone is non-cooperative, you should think to yourselves how wise that person is. Let us applaud such wise people.
For advice regarding remaining silent and other subjects refer to the following:
http://www.aclu.org/files/kyr/kyr_english.pdf
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
ON THE CAUSE OF VIOLENCE
© Chippy's Dad
"The practical reason for freedom is that freedom seems to be the only condition under which any kind of substantial moral fiber can be developed—we have tried law, compulsion and authoritarianism of various kinds, and the result is nothing to be proud of." – Albert Jay Nock.
The discussions on gun control have been extensive over the last few months. New legislation has been enacted, studies have been commissioned, and many theories have been proposed to explain the “increase” in gun violence. On March 22, 2013 an article by JoNel Aleccia of NBC News stated that the Seattle City Council may commission a study concerning the causes and effects of gun violence. The project will analyze public data in order to examine the relationship of substance abuse, mental illness, gun ownership, hospital injury admissions, and deaths. Other musings frequently heard suggest violent movies and video games as causes. Herein, another cause for all violence including gun violence is proposed: one which is conspicuously absent from the public discussion and which I have not heard or read in any other venue. The real reason for the increase in gun violence is that most people, indeed almost all people, are convinced that violence can effectively solve problems.
According to the article, “The hope [of the Seattle study] would be to use the information to target high-risk patients and their families, and then offer interventions that might prevent future gun harm.” However, this study does not ask the right question. In the words of Dave Workman, a senior editor at Gun Week magazine, “What you're talking about is a clever way to make a study with a pre-conceived conclusion that will say guns are bad.” Discussing in necessarily brief passages the five suggested causes in the same order as listed above, each at best appears to be a secondary cause or a symptom of the nearly ubiquitous conviction that violence can effectively solve problems.
Substance Abuse
Substance abuse is often cited as a cause of gun violence. Drug abuse and its support with trade are prohibited. As a prohibited activity, enforcement of agreements cannot be taken to court. Because of the lack of a legal framework for conflicts, the contending parties have no choice but to resort to violence. It is not the substance abuse itself that leads to violence. A lot of prohibited drugs deaden the energy of the user so that violence is relatively less likely. Rather it is the prohibition that leads to violence.
Some substances, such as alcoholic beverages are said to increase violence. These substances do so by reducing inhibitions, but not all people become violent. If a person already has a predilection towards violence, reducing inhibitions tends to increase realized violence. So, even in the case of violence encouraging substances, the conviction that violence can effectively solve problems plays a major part.
Mental Illness
Mental illness sometimes gets the rap for gun violence. There have been several recent documented cases wherein a person with mental illness used guns in violence, but association is not the same as causation. The question must be asked, why would a mentally ill person use a gun for violence, or why would this person resort to violence at all? Could it be that people around the mentally ill person model the use of violence to solve problems? When the mentally ill see the apparent power of gun wielding people, especially authorities, who believe in their hearts that they can effectively solve problems with gun violence, it is natural to jump to the conclusion that they too can solve their own problems with gun violence. Violence appeals to a few of the mentally ill as an easy, shocking, and effective way to solve problems. In this they are merely acting out according to the models that surround them.
Gun Ownership
Guns are tools pure and simple. It is people who become violent for whatever reason. During other times and places, and even in this time and place, other tools are used violently. Not so long ago, there was an incident in a small mountain town in Colorado where a person used a bulldozer to demolish many buildings. Gun ownership is not required to commit violent acts (though in this case after the damage had been done, a gun was used to commit suicide).
As I was writing this piece, an incident in Texas occurred. A student with something like a utility knife ran through the school slitting the throats of over a dozen other students. Guns are not necessary to create great havoc. All that is required to hurt a lot of people is the conviction that violence can effectively solve problems and the resolve to act on that conviction.
It is worth asking whether any identifiable groups of armed people are highly associated with gun violence. Indeed there are at least a couple of such groups. These groups have much in common. They both face a variety of difficult problems. They both must deal with people. Most importantly, both armed robbers and policemen frequently resort to gun violence to “solve” problems. Why do they do it? They do it because they are convinced that gun violence can effectively solve problems.
The glaring difference between armed robbers and policemen is the level of acceptance by other people. When an armed robber uses gun violence, very few people approve. Almost all people will understand that the armed robber is violating the very foundation of civilized society. When a policemen uses gun violence, most people approve. The armed robber tends to not set a precedent or provide a model for acceptable behavior. The police, on-the-other-hand, do tend to provide a model for acceptable behavior. Lots of people view the police as upholding the foundations of society. Therefore, between these two groups, it is most important for the police to avoid the use of violence. By-the-way, this is the main reason why the average policeman patrolling in public should be unarmed.
Violent Movies and Video Games
A common theory for the causes of gun violence is that movies and video games depicting violence inspire violence among impressionable youth. Maybe so. The real question is why do movies and video games often depict violence? They are forms of art that reflect back to the culture what people believe. As with most art, movies and video games depict the culture in graphic detail. Violent movies and video games are popular because so many people are convinced that violence, especially gun violence, can effectively solve problems. Without such widespread conviction, there would be no market for them and they would be rare.
The Underlying Cause of Violence That No One is Discussing
The preceding topics are only briefly discussed; more information on those topics can be found elsewhere. The purpose of this article is to present the underlying reason why violence occurs so frequently.
The conviction that violence can effectively solve problems is most prevalent among leaders in government. Most people seem to believe in each of the following prohibitions and controls. If immigrants are perceived to take away jobs, we only need to take action to control people who cross the border. If movies appear to cause violence, we only need regulate the content of movies. If drug cartels are violent, we only need to control the drug trade. If raw milk can make people sick, we only need to enact a prohibition. If a gunman might shoot other people, we only need to ban, license, or regulate guns. The extent of such controls, regulations, and prohibitions has become so ubiquitous that little is left for personal freedom to act. And yet, new controls, regulations, and prohibitions are enacted frequently and proposed daily. Just the other day, I saw a proposal to establish an offenders list for animal abusers (Is not animal abuse already illegal, just asking the question?).
Implementation of any of these controls, regulations, and prohibitions, along with thousands of other prohibitions and controls, requires enforcement. Enforcement is nothing other than the application of force on people. Typically, this force consists of the use of batons to beat people, pepper spray to temporarily disable people, guns to injure or kill people, and cages to isolate people. Hardly a day goes by wherein the news as seen on television, read in newspapers and books, or posted on the internet does not present a plethora of graphically violent beatings, sprayings, and shootings.
Conclusion
The frequency of violence stems from the culture of violence. Any time someone advocates new legislation, any time an armed policeman stops a non-violent “offender”, or anytime a child in school is exposed to a policy of “zero tolerance”, violence becomes yet more ingrained in the culture. Guns are not the problem; neither are knives nor bulldozers. Those objects are tools. Violence stems from the conviction that violence can effectively solve problems. If you want a less violent culture with fewer mass shootings, or stabbings, then start by renouncing your conviction that the violence required to enforce more legislation can effectively solve problems. The most important type of violence to eschew is the violence of advocating for more governmental controls, for this violence specifically tends to establish a model of behavior for others. Personally renounce violence: all violence.
© Chippy's Dad
"The practical reason for freedom is that freedom seems to be the only condition under which any kind of substantial moral fiber can be developed—we have tried law, compulsion and authoritarianism of various kinds, and the result is nothing to be proud of." – Albert Jay Nock.
The discussions on gun control have been extensive over the last few months. New legislation has been enacted, studies have been commissioned, and many theories have been proposed to explain the “increase” in gun violence. On March 22, 2013 an article by JoNel Aleccia of NBC News stated that the Seattle City Council may commission a study concerning the causes and effects of gun violence. The project will analyze public data in order to examine the relationship of substance abuse, mental illness, gun ownership, hospital injury admissions, and deaths. Other musings frequently heard suggest violent movies and video games as causes. Herein, another cause for all violence including gun violence is proposed: one which is conspicuously absent from the public discussion and which I have not heard or read in any other venue. The real reason for the increase in gun violence is that most people, indeed almost all people, are convinced that violence can effectively solve problems.
According to the article, “The hope [of the Seattle study] would be to use the information to target high-risk patients and their families, and then offer interventions that might prevent future gun harm.” However, this study does not ask the right question. In the words of Dave Workman, a senior editor at Gun Week magazine, “What you're talking about is a clever way to make a study with a pre-conceived conclusion that will say guns are bad.” Discussing in necessarily brief passages the five suggested causes in the same order as listed above, each at best appears to be a secondary cause or a symptom of the nearly ubiquitous conviction that violence can effectively solve problems.
Substance Abuse
Substance abuse is often cited as a cause of gun violence. Drug abuse and its support with trade are prohibited. As a prohibited activity, enforcement of agreements cannot be taken to court. Because of the lack of a legal framework for conflicts, the contending parties have no choice but to resort to violence. It is not the substance abuse itself that leads to violence. A lot of prohibited drugs deaden the energy of the user so that violence is relatively less likely. Rather it is the prohibition that leads to violence.
Some substances, such as alcoholic beverages are said to increase violence. These substances do so by reducing inhibitions, but not all people become violent. If a person already has a predilection towards violence, reducing inhibitions tends to increase realized violence. So, even in the case of violence encouraging substances, the conviction that violence can effectively solve problems plays a major part.
Mental Illness
Mental illness sometimes gets the rap for gun violence. There have been several recent documented cases wherein a person with mental illness used guns in violence, but association is not the same as causation. The question must be asked, why would a mentally ill person use a gun for violence, or why would this person resort to violence at all? Could it be that people around the mentally ill person model the use of violence to solve problems? When the mentally ill see the apparent power of gun wielding people, especially authorities, who believe in their hearts that they can effectively solve problems with gun violence, it is natural to jump to the conclusion that they too can solve their own problems with gun violence. Violence appeals to a few of the mentally ill as an easy, shocking, and effective way to solve problems. In this they are merely acting out according to the models that surround them.
Gun Ownership
Guns are tools pure and simple. It is people who become violent for whatever reason. During other times and places, and even in this time and place, other tools are used violently. Not so long ago, there was an incident in a small mountain town in Colorado where a person used a bulldozer to demolish many buildings. Gun ownership is not required to commit violent acts (though in this case after the damage had been done, a gun was used to commit suicide).
As I was writing this piece, an incident in Texas occurred. A student with something like a utility knife ran through the school slitting the throats of over a dozen other students. Guns are not necessary to create great havoc. All that is required to hurt a lot of people is the conviction that violence can effectively solve problems and the resolve to act on that conviction.
It is worth asking whether any identifiable groups of armed people are highly associated with gun violence. Indeed there are at least a couple of such groups. These groups have much in common. They both face a variety of difficult problems. They both must deal with people. Most importantly, both armed robbers and policemen frequently resort to gun violence to “solve” problems. Why do they do it? They do it because they are convinced that gun violence can effectively solve problems.
The glaring difference between armed robbers and policemen is the level of acceptance by other people. When an armed robber uses gun violence, very few people approve. Almost all people will understand that the armed robber is violating the very foundation of civilized society. When a policemen uses gun violence, most people approve. The armed robber tends to not set a precedent or provide a model for acceptable behavior. The police, on-the-other-hand, do tend to provide a model for acceptable behavior. Lots of people view the police as upholding the foundations of society. Therefore, between these two groups, it is most important for the police to avoid the use of violence. By-the-way, this is the main reason why the average policeman patrolling in public should be unarmed.
Violent Movies and Video Games
A common theory for the causes of gun violence is that movies and video games depicting violence inspire violence among impressionable youth. Maybe so. The real question is why do movies and video games often depict violence? They are forms of art that reflect back to the culture what people believe. As with most art, movies and video games depict the culture in graphic detail. Violent movies and video games are popular because so many people are convinced that violence, especially gun violence, can effectively solve problems. Without such widespread conviction, there would be no market for them and they would be rare.
The Underlying Cause of Violence That No One is Discussing
The preceding topics are only briefly discussed; more information on those topics can be found elsewhere. The purpose of this article is to present the underlying reason why violence occurs so frequently.
The conviction that violence can effectively solve problems is most prevalent among leaders in government. Most people seem to believe in each of the following prohibitions and controls. If immigrants are perceived to take away jobs, we only need to take action to control people who cross the border. If movies appear to cause violence, we only need regulate the content of movies. If drug cartels are violent, we only need to control the drug trade. If raw milk can make people sick, we only need to enact a prohibition. If a gunman might shoot other people, we only need to ban, license, or regulate guns. The extent of such controls, regulations, and prohibitions has become so ubiquitous that little is left for personal freedom to act. And yet, new controls, regulations, and prohibitions are enacted frequently and proposed daily. Just the other day, I saw a proposal to establish an offenders list for animal abusers (Is not animal abuse already illegal, just asking the question?).
Implementation of any of these controls, regulations, and prohibitions, along with thousands of other prohibitions and controls, requires enforcement. Enforcement is nothing other than the application of force on people. Typically, this force consists of the use of batons to beat people, pepper spray to temporarily disable people, guns to injure or kill people, and cages to isolate people. Hardly a day goes by wherein the news as seen on television, read in newspapers and books, or posted on the internet does not present a plethora of graphically violent beatings, sprayings, and shootings.
Conclusion
The frequency of violence stems from the culture of violence. Any time someone advocates new legislation, any time an armed policeman stops a non-violent “offender”, or anytime a child in school is exposed to a policy of “zero tolerance”, violence becomes yet more ingrained in the culture. Guns are not the problem; neither are knives nor bulldozers. Those objects are tools. Violence stems from the conviction that violence can effectively solve problems. If you want a less violent culture with fewer mass shootings, or stabbings, then start by renouncing your conviction that the violence required to enforce more legislation can effectively solve problems. The most important type of violence to eschew is the violence of advocating for more governmental controls, for this violence specifically tends to establish a model of behavior for others. Personally renounce violence: all violence.
Monday, September 24, 2012
Friday, September 21, 2012
Thursday, March 3, 2011
new video
Please check out my new video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38Kyl8CcamY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38Kyl8CcamY
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Monday, September 20, 2010
ELECTION OF SENATORS
ON ELECTION OF SENATORS BY STATE LEGISLATORS
© Chippy's Dad
I heard a political negative attack ad the other day. A particular candidate was being accused of supporting a constitutional amendment to repeal the 17th amendment, otherwise known as the direct election of senators. Wow, I have long supported returning to the original constitutional provision that senators would be elected by the legislatures of the several states. I never thought that this idea would make it into serious public discussion.
The direct election of senators in which senators are elected by the people is supposed to be more democratic and give the people more power over the government. In fact, it does the exact opposite.
The various segments of the government are each jealous of their own power. In particular, the state legislatures are jealous of their power. The concept of federalism is intended to account for this jealousy. As long as the United States Senate is made up of people who are beholden to the states, the central government will not be able to easily usurp power from the states. That is to say that more power would reside at the state level.
With the direct election of senators, the state governments no longer held any control over the central government. The main purpose of having a bi-cameral congress disappeared.
The practical effect was a massive increase in the power of the central government in Washington at the expense of the state governments and ordinary people. That means that anyone wishing to influence the government must go to Washington instead of the state capital. Now which is easier for an ordinary person from, say, Meeker, Colorado wishing to petition the government: go to Denver, or go to Washington?
As opposed to the propaganda of self-styled elites, the direct election of senators is actually intended to, and does, increase the power of the moneyed special interests. Only those with great financial resources can have a significant effect on government policies. When the congressional senators were elected by the states, much more policy was developed at the state level; and ordinary citizens on Main Street, as opposed to Wall Street, had more influence. Once direct election of senators was instituted in 1913, power was transferred from Main Street to Wall Street. That is when America started down the long road towards the current financial crisis. How many unfunded mandates would there be if the senators were elected by the state governments?
Clearly those who would oppose the return to the original senatorial elections by state legislatures are those who support increased power for powerful Wall Street special interests and decreased power for ordinary people on Main Street. Let us return power to Main Street by repealing the 17th amendment.
Incidentally, added benefits to senatorial election by state legislatures would be fewer political advertisements and pesky automated dinnertime political phone calls. It would also be helpful if state senators were elected by county governments. Act locally.
© Chippy's Dad
I heard a political negative attack ad the other day. A particular candidate was being accused of supporting a constitutional amendment to repeal the 17th amendment, otherwise known as the direct election of senators. Wow, I have long supported returning to the original constitutional provision that senators would be elected by the legislatures of the several states. I never thought that this idea would make it into serious public discussion.
The direct election of senators in which senators are elected by the people is supposed to be more democratic and give the people more power over the government. In fact, it does the exact opposite.
The various segments of the government are each jealous of their own power. In particular, the state legislatures are jealous of their power. The concept of federalism is intended to account for this jealousy. As long as the United States Senate is made up of people who are beholden to the states, the central government will not be able to easily usurp power from the states. That is to say that more power would reside at the state level.
With the direct election of senators, the state governments no longer held any control over the central government. The main purpose of having a bi-cameral congress disappeared.
The practical effect was a massive increase in the power of the central government in Washington at the expense of the state governments and ordinary people. That means that anyone wishing to influence the government must go to Washington instead of the state capital. Now which is easier for an ordinary person from, say, Meeker, Colorado wishing to petition the government: go to Denver, or go to Washington?
As opposed to the propaganda of self-styled elites, the direct election of senators is actually intended to, and does, increase the power of the moneyed special interests. Only those with great financial resources can have a significant effect on government policies. When the congressional senators were elected by the states, much more policy was developed at the state level; and ordinary citizens on Main Street, as opposed to Wall Street, had more influence. Once direct election of senators was instituted in 1913, power was transferred from Main Street to Wall Street. That is when America started down the long road towards the current financial crisis. How many unfunded mandates would there be if the senators were elected by the state governments?
Clearly those who would oppose the return to the original senatorial elections by state legislatures are those who support increased power for powerful Wall Street special interests and decreased power for ordinary people on Main Street. Let us return power to Main Street by repealing the 17th amendment.
Incidentally, added benefits to senatorial election by state legislatures would be fewer political advertisements and pesky automated dinnertime political phone calls. It would also be helpful if state senators were elected by county governments. Act locally.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
