Gyroscopic Investing

Anyone curious on how it would happen or look like in the U.S., at least in the beginning?

Exhibit A:  California.

Oh, and they credit their extensive database of registered gun owners as enabling the identification of the newly prohibited and obtaining search warrants.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-1 ... cmpid=yhoo

Devil's-advocate-playing: so long as the definition of "prohibited person" is sane and rational, is this something we should be upset about? If we believe that felons and the mentally ill should be prevented from buying guns, and it should be a crime for them to keep their guns, what's objectionable about the government actively confiscating what's already illegal for them to possess? Isn't this just the logical conclusion of determining that there are classes of people ineligible for firearms ownership?

Pointedstick wrote: Devil's-advocate-playing: so long as the definition of "prohibited person" is sane and rational, is this something we should be upset about?

We're talking about the government of California here....."sane and rational" does not apply.

If we believe that felons and the mentally ill should be prevented from buying guns, and it should be a crime for them to keep their guns, what's objectionable about the government actively confiscating what's already illegal for them to possess

One, why should a felon be prohibited from owning a gun merely based on being a felon (especially with the kind of "crimes" that pass for a felony nowadays)? If he/she is such a danger to society then why was he/she let out of prison to begin with (conversely, if we trust them enough to release them then why don't we trust them to own a weapon again?) I could perhaps see prohibiting someone on parole from owning a gun until they get off parole (since they are still serving a sentence of sorts at that point) but once they have completed their parole/probation/supervised release let them have their rights back.

Two, being mentally ill is not a crime, nor is it something that can be chosen (one presumably has to choose to commit a crime). Why should an innocent citizen be stripped of one of his rights just because he is ill...or more likely because some state-sanctioned head shrinker says he is ( "Oh, seems you dislike the government and harshly criticize it....and it says here that you don't act with the proper deference towards cops.....that sounds to me like you have "anger management issues" and "oppositional defiant disorder". No guns for you" ).

Three, you read the article; this policy results in guns being taken from people who aren't even criminals or mentally ill, just because they happen to share a house with someone who fits into one of the above two categories.

I actually disagree with the concept as well; I was only playing devil's advocate. And I live in California, so I'm familiar with both the procedure and the state and federal criteria for losing your gun rights.

What I'm saying is that regardless of how you feel about the fact that felons and the mentally ill (and legal drug users, and domestic violence misdemeanants, and the subject of TROs) are barred from firearms ownership, doesn't it make a kind of logical sense that current firearm owners who become members of the prohibited class should have their guns taken away? Isn't that sort of the logical conclusion of saying that they should be prevented from buying and owning should be illegal?

But obviously no matter what your position is, confiscating firearms owned by housemates is extremely problematic for a variety of reasons.

Slippery slope.

D1984 wrote:Why should an innocent citizen be stripped of one of his rights just because he is ill...or more likely because some state-sanctioned head shrinker says he is ( "Oh, seems you dislike the government and harshly criticize it....and it says here that you don't act with the proper deference towards cops.....that sounds to me like you have "anger management issues" and "oppositional defiant disorder". No guns for you" ).

This is an important point.  I recently saw the movie The Changeling, and it's shocking just how easy it is for a doctor who's a patsy for either the police or the gov't to commit someone who's "mentally unwell" in order to further a political agenda or to protect those in power.  You watch a movie like that and it shakes your confidence in our freedoms and how quickly they could be taken away under the right circumstances. 

Pointedstick wrote: Devil's-advocate-playing: so long as the definition of "prohibited person" is sane and rational, is this something we should be upset about? If we believe that felons and the mentally ill should be prevented from buying guns, and it should be a crime for them to keep their guns, what's objectionable about the government actively confiscating what's already illegal for them to possess? Isn't this just the logical conclusion of determining that there are classes of people ineligible for firearms ownership?

I have two main issues with this system.

1.  Currently we have prohibited status, which is fine.  I don't want murderers possessing firearms (actually I don't want them out of jail at all, but that's a different topic).  However, the way it currently works is that the guns are confiscated during the course of a separate police action.  They don't go periodically searching all the prohibited persons for guns to seize.  They do it when they catch Bubba making a drug deal or Crazy Jane streaking through the supermarket (well...maybe not in California).

2.  The list of what constitutes a "prohibited person" can be changed at any time and is completely at the whim of the government.  Even the existing standards have some very loose or inappropriate interpretations in them.  Domestic abuse is a serious issue, but just because a potentially spiteful ex decides to call the cops doesn't mean you should forfeit your 2nd amendment rights.  Also, feeling depressed in America is almost a given these days, having an over-zealous nurse label you as mentally ill shouldn't classify you as a "prohibited person" either.

Neither of these issues are a problem unless the government has a list of firearm owners so that they can immediately show up on your door and force you to choose between your 2nd amendment rights and your life or freedom.

RuralEngineer wrote: 1.  Currently we have prohibited status, which is fine.  I don't want murderers possessing firearms (actually I don't want them out of jail at all, but that's a different topic).

In my mind, you've just identified the core of the issue: do we as a society really want to say that there are people too dangerous to possess firearms, but not dangerous enough to incarcerate in some fashion? I've always wondered what made people think that this was a reasonable state of affairs. In my mind, someone who's so dangerous to others that they can't be trusted with guns probably can't be trusted with matches and gasoline either, and should probably be locked up.

RuralEngineer wrote: 2.  The list of what constitutes a "prohibited person" can be changed at any time and is completely at the whim of the government.  Even the existing standards have some very loose or inappropriate interpretations in them.  Domestic abuse is a serious issue, but just because a potentially spiteful ex decides to call the cops doesn't mean you should forfeit your 2nd amendment rights.  Also, feeling depressed in America is almost a given these days, having an over-zealous nurse label you as mentally ill shouldn't classify you as a "prohibited person" either.

That's my biggest beef with the concept of forbidding guns (or most civil rights).

For example, being a convicted felon.  Sounds very serious, right?  It used to be.  But as one simple counter example, many states used to use dollar amounts as a threshold for felony theft.  If the standard was say $3000 in 1970 that would be equivalent to stealing a good new car.  How many states have indexed that standard to at least $15,000 dollars?  Instead, most states have been LOWERING the standards, such that in many of them $1000 could be a felony.  Is stealing $1000 in electronics really as serious as premeditated homicide such that it requires the same forfeiture of civil rights including the RKBA?  Now I am very opposed to theft, such that I'd have no problem shooting someone I caught breaking into my home.  But the present system is broken.

Just listened to a Texas congressman state that one of his problems with new firearm legislation is that he is skeptical about whether it addresses the cause of violence in our country.

I think this is a rather weak argument because sometimes addressing the root cause of an issue is an impossible task. The causes of violence involve incredibly complex problems such as genetic disposition, and deep societal attitudes pertaining to our culture. Fixing these would be nearly impossible. So if we can't get to the root cause of violence, maybe the next best thing is to minimize its ability to easily manifest itself in devastating ways. This is of course a delicate issue, but being somewhat of a philosophical utilitarian...in certain cases (not all) the greatest good for the greatest number seems to be the overriding determination of morality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

doodle wrote: Just listened to a Texas congressman state that one of his problems with new firearm legislation is that he is skeptical about whether it addresses the cause of violence in our country.

I think this is a rather weak argument because sometimes addressing the root cause of an issue is an impossible task. The causes of violence involve incredibly complex problems such as genetic disposition, and deep societal attitudes pertaining to our culture. Fixing these would be nearly impossible. So if we can't get to the root cause of violence, maybe the next best thing is to minimize its ability to easily manifest itself in devastating ways. This is of course a delicate issue, but being somewhat of a philosophical utilitarian...in certain cases (not all) the greatest good for the greatest number seems to be the overriding determination of morality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

If you want to take an objective utilitarian stance, you should start by banning government--by far the largest enabler of violence in human history. Private small arms take a distant backseat to military forces armed with machine guns, artillery, aircraft, mines, bombs, missiles, and nuclear warheads.

The reason that governments engage in so many wars is that they operate essentially in a world of anarchy. Being that there is no further authority above the state, government violence is a perfect example of how humans behave in a system of anarchy.

So you're saying that the inherently violent world of anarchy is only curbed by creating an even more violent world of governments? Or do you dispute that governments create more violence than anarchy alone would result in?

I'm genuinely curious to  hear your opinion, because to me, the massive industrialized wars that kill tens to hundreds of millions which governments create on the scale never before seen in human history is something that I simply cannot imagine happening in their absence. Violence has always been with humanity but it seems to me that governments are constantly working to hone humanity's violence-making abilities to a level that consistently shocks me.

I would argue that humans are constantly working to hone violence making, not governments. I would say governments are like technology. They are neutral and can be used for either good or bad depending on how enlightened the population and those in government are. Overall, I would say that our lives in the United States have benifitted greatly from having a government structure. The role of that government has expanded over the last 50 years but so has our prosperity and civil and social rights.

I think it is a mistake to project all of the problems of the world on an institution whose existence is necessary when groups of humans come to live in close proximity. There is a reason why governments came into existence as humans transitioned from roaming clans to organized agricultural societies. Even my condominium of 100 people has an elected government (board of directors) to enforce laws, levy fines, and make decisions. If my condo couldnt function without a governing body, why are you so convinced a society of 300 million could?

Pointedstick wrote: So you're saying that the inherently violent world of anarchy is only curbed by creating an even more violent world of governments? Or do you dispute that governments create more violence than anarchy alone would result in?

I'm genuinely curious to  hear your opinion, because to me, the massive industrialized wars that kill tens to hundreds of millions which governments create on the scale never before seen in human history is something that I simply cannot imagine happening in their absence. Violence has always been with humanity but it seems to me that governments are constantly working to hone humanity's violence-making abilities to a level that consistently shocks me.

PS,

I think this is a big game of lesser evils here.  How many "free societies" of sorts (nomadic or indiginous peoples) were basically wiped out because genocide and theft were just obsolete easy.

We have to create government because we have resources that other governments want.

One could say that a world of anarchy would be more peaceful than one with governments, but 1) I doubt that, and more importantly 2) we can only disassemble our government.  Not others.  So we're just leaving ourselves open not to other individual anarchists, but efficient war machines of foreign countries.

All we are collectively left with at the polls is the ability to affect OUR governments (and barely at that).  Given that option, we have to develop a more nuanced approach to how to give ourselves more freedom and prosperity than if we could control the world.

doodle, I would agree that humans are constantly working to home our violence-making abilities. In the past you've expressed strong support for the idea that one's environment strongly determines one's expression of traits and behaviors, so let me posit that that government is an environment--like all others--where certain traits are encouraged and others discouraged. Just like corporations, banks, co-ops, cities, etc. For example a wall street bank would be an environment that encourages the expression of greed, status-seeking, and acquisitiveness. Can we agree on all this so far?

Now let me posit that the traits that the "government" environment encourages are violence-making and agression, and it discourages courteousness and empathy. So government is not neutral, not simply an expression of all of our traits; rather it is an expression of some of our traits more than others: the worst ones, in my opinion.

You can say, as moda has, that we need an organization full of efficient violence-mongers to protect us from other ones, and that's a very fair point. But IMHO you can't pretend that government is just some neutral entity that reflects the collective will of those it rules over.

moda0306 wrote: I think this is a big game of lesser evils here.  How many "free societies" of sorts (nomadic or indiginous peoples) were basically wiped out because genocide and theft were just obsolete easy.

We have to create government because we have resources that other governments want.

One could say that a world of anarchy would be more peaceful than one with governments, but 1) I doubt that, and more importantly 2) we can only disassemble our government.  Not others.  So we're just leaving ourselves open not to other individual anarchists, but efficient war machines of foreign countries.

All we are collectively left with at the polls is the ability to affect OUR governments (and barely at that).  Given that option, we have to develop a more nuanced approach to how to give ourselves more freedom and prosperity than if we could control the world.

This is a great point. Government is inherently stronger than anarchy, which is why today the world's governments have wiped most of them out. Your points have a great deal of practical merit, and are why I'm mostly an ideological anarchist. Back in the real world, I know full well that you're right and anyone who wants to be safe from government really needs one of their own to offer that protection. That's why I don't see any real contradiction when I engage in the political process; sure, I reject the legitimacy of government and in an ideal world none of that would be necessary, but in the real world, politics is the only way I have any shred of a chance of affecting anything the government does.

Maybe at some point in the future there will be widespread private ownership of weapons so powerful that their owners would be able to challenge the power of governments, but we don't live in that world. And now you see why I'm so strongly in favor of private weapons ownership… 

Pointedstick wrote: you can't pretend that government is just some neutral entity that reflects the collective will of those it rules over.

Let me play devil's advocate.  You know I dilike the federal gov't and am very live and let live, but not an anarchist.  Couldn't e.g. a small town gov't be well at least much nearer to that than the federal abomination?  I.e. giving as little power as possible to the central  gov't and putting as much as possible at the local level.  WOuldn't that solve at least some of the problems? 

We could live without government if all of us behaved like Dr. Spock...but we don't. Unfortunately, in order to have a civilized society where people will invest and work hard for the future you need stability. People who are not willing to play by the rules of society sometimes have to be coerced. Can you give me any example in history where a group of people banded together and there didnt emerge a hierarchical power structure? Even the simplest forms of tribal organization have elders and shamans. Those who don't abide by the laws of the group are banished, which in the wilderness is equivalent to a death sentence.

A small ship at sea is the perfect metaphor for our earth floating through a vast and uninhabitable cosmos. Do you think that you could successfully navigate a ship across the atlantic ocean without a hierarchy and power structure? How would decisions be made and enforced or disagreements resolved?

I think it would be much more constructive to focus on how to improve the functioning of government rather than contending that the answer is always to reduce or abolish it.

doodle wrote: We could live without government if all of us behaved like Dr. Spock...but we don't. Unfortunately, in order to have a civilized society where people will invest and work hard for the future you need stability. People who are not willing to play by the rules of society sometimes have to be coerced. Can you give me any example in history where a group of people banded together and there didnt emerge a hierarchical power structure? Even the simplest forms of tribal organization have elders and shamans. Those who don't abide by the laws of the group are banished, which in the wilderness is equivalent to a death sentence.

A small ship at sea is the perfect metaphor for our earth floating through a vast and uninhabitable cosmos. Do you think that you could successfully navigate a ship across the atlantic ocean without a hierarchy and power structure? How would decisions be made and enforced or disagreements resolved?

I think it would be much more constructive to focus on how to improve the functioning of government rather than contending that the answer is always to reduce or abolish it.

You didn't actually answer my question, unless your response can be taken to mean that your answer is "you're right, but we don't have any other option." Would that be a fair summary, or would you like to answer my question with your own words so I don't have to stuff any in your mouth? 

Benko wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: you can't pretend that government is just some neutral entity that reflects the collective will of those it rules over.

Let me play devil's advocate.  You know I dilike the federal gov't and am very live and let live, but not an anarchist.  Couldn't e.g. a small town gov't be well at least much nearer to that than the federal abomination?  I.e. giving as little power as possible to the central  gov't and putting as much as possible at the local level.  WOuldn't that solve at least some of the problems?

I agree... so long as our goal is a government that better reflects the will of the people it rules over. By way of illustration: a government of one is always perfectly representative. A government of two is as representative as the average opinions of the two residents, a government of three is as representative as the average opinions of the three residents, etc.

To that effect, a representative government that rules over fewer people is automatically more representative for any given level of diversity. Reduce the number of people or the diversity of thought present in the group, and your government becomes more representative of those who live under it.

So if our aim is a representative government that better reflects the people living in it, I can't help but agree that breaking the units of government into smaller chunks will help to achieve that goal. Reducing diversity can accomplish the same thing but is usually not on the table as it requires brainwashing, forced relocation, genocide, etc.

There is something to be said for natural self-organization.  It's even been used to regulate traffic (that is, no traffic regulations results in drivers spontaneously self-organizing to safely navigate the roadway). 

But there are limits to this as well, and without any semblance of a gov't you would probably wind up with either some type of a feudal and/or tribal system or else a pure democracy, neither of which is ideal; the former creates royalty and serfs and the latter creates mob rule. 

Oh, and I'm a Libertarian and no fan of gov't either. 

Benko wrote: Couldn't e.g. a small town gov't be well at least much nearer to that than the federal abomination?  I.e. giving as little power as possible to the central  gov't and putting as much as possible at the local level.  WOuldn't that solve at least some of the problems?

Ironically, that was the original intent of our Founding Fathers.

rocketdog wrote: There is something to be said for natural self-organization.  It's even been used to regulate traffic (that is, no traffic regulations results in drivers spontaneously self-organizing to safely navigate the roadway). 

But there are limits to this as well, and without any semblance of a gov't you would probably wind up with either some type of a feudal and/or tribal system or else a pure democracy, neither of which is ideal; the former creates royalty and serfs and the latter creates mob rule. 

Exactly! However, have you ever driven in a third world country with little govt traffic laws? Its a mess

Pointedstick wrote: doodle, I would agree that humans are constantly working to home our violence-making abilities. In the past you've expressed strong support for the idea that one's environment strongly determines one's expression of traits and behaviors, so let me posit that that government is an environment--like all others--where certain traits are encouraged and others discouraged. Just like corporations, banks, co-ops, cities, etc. For example a wall street bank would be an environment that encourages the expression of greed, status-seeking, and acquisitiveness. Can we agree on all this so far?

Now let me posit that the traits that the "government" environment encourages are violence-making and agression, and it discourages courteousness and empathy. So government is not neutral, not simply an expression of all of our traits; rather it is an expression of some of our traits more than others: the worst ones, in my opinion.

You can say, as moda has, that we need an organization full of efficient violence-mongers to protect us from other ones, and that's a very fair point. But IMHO you can't pretend that government is just some neutral entity that reflects the collective will of those it rules over.

Is this the question you are referring to?

The "goverment" environment of violence making I would argue is really the "human" environment of violence making. Are you suggesting that violence would cease to exist if governments were abolished? What happens when there is a dispute in a world without government? How does such a dispute get resolved and how is the decision enforced? Drug cartels resolve disputes without government courts....look at the outcome. Is there a non coercive market mechanism that is going to stop my group of bandits from sacking your house when we are hungry and want to eat? Ultimately the only thing that will stop me is force....either yours or the governments.

doodle wrote:

rocketdog wrote: There is something to be said for natural self-organization.  It's even been used to regulate traffic (that is, no traffic regulations results in drivers spontaneously self-organizing to safely navigate the roadway). 

Exactly! However, have you ever driven in a third world country with little govt traffic laws? Its a mess

You mean like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzjifmHavAQ