Right, Left, Up, Down: Directions (including politics) are relative. How are we really moving?

     There are a lot of words that label political viewpoints — conservative, liberal, progressive, radical, authoritarian, moderate, centrist, pragmatic, and so forth. There are ALSO words that connect economic views to political views even though these are disjoint situations — so a person might be called a socialist, capitalist, communist, or whatever inferring that these economic systems can adequately reflect a person’s political views.

     But, whatever label is used to describe — it can only be useful if the same definition of meaning is used by both the speaker/writer and the listener/reader. All of the above words do have definition meanings (though some are less strictly defined than others). But, if you ask someone the definition of many of these words, they get described from a basis of what they believe it means to themselves as opposed to what the dictionary may say.

People who use a word to communicate must all be working from the same definition.

     So, usage of words like liberal or conservative rarely have value. Certainly current usage, and people definitions (as opposed to dictionary definitions), are not the same as they were thirty years ago or even twenty years ago.

     If one does want to discuss, and describe, political viewpoints and words are difficult to be sure if they are valid, then what can be done?

     Most people agree, in general, that people’s political viewpoints are towards the “left” or the “right” or the “center”. The exact definitions of those words are NOT in full agreement with all users of such words — but they can be used in terms of comparison.

     I would propose that the main spectrum of comparison for political views would range from anarchy (where each person does, says, and behaves as they want — fully independent of others) and fascism (possibly dictatorship or totalitarian) at the other. One end gives all power equally to individuals and the other end concentrates power and control into the hands of a few (usually with ONE person in charge overall).

anarchy ———————————————————————————————- fascism

     Societies of fully anarchic principles don’t last long — conflicts between individuals arise almost immediately and cause the system to collapse. On the other end, however, fascist systems are very hard to eliminate because of the full concentration of resources, control, and power. Fascist systems are more likely to be overthrown because of the huge pools of people who exist outside of the controlling groups — they get “fed up” and create (usually unstable) temporary structures OR the core control groups break up due to the inherent problems with the transfer of power and control within a very small group.

     You could also label the above spectrum

individual ———————————————————————————-—— core cabal

because it is a line of distribution of power and control.

     Now that we have the spectrum line set up what do we do with it? It is all about relativity. The label “centrist” should go into the center but note that the centrist values of the US are very different from the “centrist” values in the rest of the world. For most of the world, Universal Health Care is just a norm that people don’t really think much about — it is only the corporate/stockholder world of the United States that believes people are entitled to make profits out of sickness. For not quite as much of the world, paid public education continues up through later university levels — with the strange idea that an educated public makes a stronger country. The folks that call themselves “centrist” in the US would be quite a bit farther to the right of center than those who call themselves such outside of the US. This applies to much of the US Democratic party.

     The older Republican party would still be to the “right” of the Democratic party but the current Republican party has shifted so far towards the right end of the spectrum that those people they call “far left” are really pretty close to the center. Remember that it is all about relativity. The farther “right” one group is, the more “left” an opposing group might be. As far as the above spectrum is concerned, there isn’t much activity on the left end for the US. Anarchists have no political power and direct mandates (which routes around representative democracy) seems to be losing out in general elections versus the courts (people say “yes”, representatives say “no” and the representatives “win”).

     We can play a game at placing all other labels onto the spectrum but — as is true of personal (rather than dictionary) definitions — we probably would disagree a lot on that position. But, relative to the Democratic party and the current Republican party, libertarians would probably be placed in-between and the Green party to the left of the Democratic party (more left, the more individual-oriented).

     The title of this newsletter includes two other directions — up and down. These are associated with wealth which is closely related to the “right” end of the spectrum but not identical to it. Just as in the progress of physicists from Newton to Einstein to Hawking, large gravity masses can distort space (and time?), the existence of excessive wealth can distort the individual/fascism spectrum. It does it just as does a dwarf star in space. The excessively wealthy individual can act as a very, very weighty (both senses of the word — pun intended) individual. Thus, on the individual to fascist scale those “super-individual”s can distort the line either direction (or both at once which is weird but, in this viewpoint, still possible.

     What is “best” then? Would someone right in the middle cover the best situation? I doubt it. The center of the mass of wealth/control/influence will fluctuate from day to day, year to year. If you are part of that exclusive set of people who concentrate the power/control then that is “best” for you. If you have ideas less popular to the general populace you might head left on the spectrum but, even if economic distortion continues to occur, your “best” place will still be to the “right” of many.

     Where do you place yourself? Your elected representative? Your king or queen? Your neighbor across the street? Just as is said for other characteristics (such as social interactions), it’s a wide, wide world.

Thanks for reading Ideas & Interpretations! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The Second Amendment: With this New Year, we need DISCUSSIONS. Discussions where we talk -- hear and listen -- think and respond. No need of rants, sound bites, bumper stickers or political diatribes.

     Another day, another murder. “Just a sad consequence of freedom”. So, why is the United States the only country in the world — that is not in the midst of armed civil war — that has such problems?

History of the Second Amendment

   vv v Back in the days of the beginning of the United States of America, after the Constitution was signed, the “Founding Fathers” continued to work on a Bill of Rights. These aspects — amendments to be considered as part of the Constitution (a work in progress) had been discussed during the time of creation of the Constitution. But, as is true of most things that have to go through committees, agreement was not quick to obtain. So, certain issues, that they KNEW they wanted to have in the Constitution, were postponed so that the foundation document could be sent around to the States and be approved.

     I don’t know if the Bill of Rights, ratified as a group of Amendments on December 15, 1791, had an internal order of importance. The fact that they waited for the group of ten to be ready before sending them to be ratified indicates they were all considered to be important.

     But the Second Amendment is one of those ten composing the Bill of Rights. It reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

     The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution (including all Amendments) to determine the meaning behind the words. That interpretation is not unmoving and usually reflects the changes that are occurring within the country and how the words may best be interpreted in the current period. Since the Supreme Court Justices are humans, they have the inherent flaws and biases (and potential corruption) of humans, and as such may make decisions that others disagree with. But, that is their legal, Constitutional, power — to interpret what the words mean.

     Generally speaking (not being a professional lawyer or historian), the Second Amendment was created based on the experiences of those writing it. They had experienced — either directly or via their ancestors’ experiences — the effects of only the government having access to weapons (and ammunition). The splitting of the clauses for “a well regulated Militia” and “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” has created a lot of the discussion, changes in interpretation, and political divides about the Second Amendment.

     There has been little argument (as far as I have heard) about the “well regulated Militia” part. Each State was to continue to have their own state militia (now called the National Guard) independent of the Federal government and under the control of the State government. The relationship between the Federal government and state government’s control is presently an area of active discussion in the Supreme Court. (To me, it seems pretty clear — but it isn’t my right to make a decision.)

     The part of “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” is the portion that has — over the past 50 years (not very much before that) — been debated and politicized. Does it apply only in connection to the “well regulated Militia” (the primary interpretation until the 1980s) or is that a separate, but equally weighted, protection within the Amendment? (Once again, I have my opinion — but not the right to make a decision.)

If people kill people, what is special about guns?

     “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. AGREED. But does anyone really think that someone could kill 500 people in 5 minutes with a butcher knife?

• Guns make it EASY.

• Guns remove the time possible for second-thoughts.

• Guns reduce the time for potential defence.

• The AR-15 has only the remotest resemblance to a Brown Bess musket muzzle-loader used during the time of the writing of the Second Amendment.

     And yes, there are other means of mass murder available — chemicals, biological weapons, arson, nuclear and conventional bombs, and so forth. But they aren’t as convenient, or easily available, as guns.

Where does gun control come into play?

     Here we come to another area of the division of powers allocated by the Constitution. Congress (NOT the Executive branch) can make laws to clarify aspects of law and the Constitution — subject to the potential judgement of the Supreme Court (which can decide if a law is valid or not, primarily based on the Constitution). So, it can make so-called “gun control” laws to REGULATE access to weapons and ammunition. It cannot forbid access but it can regulate, and control, access — subject to the agreement of the Supreme Court.

     “They want to get rid of all of the guns”. FALSE. Very, very few people want to totally eliminate guns. There are various legitimate uses for guns such as hunting and competitions, and (unfortunately) self-defence. The idea that a group of people “want to take your guns away” is a falsehood (lie) that is very convenient for politicians, or profit-oriented private groups, to repeat over and over. Like other “big lies”, they expect that if it is repeated without end people will believe it is true. So, it goes into campaign speeches and bumper stickers. But it isn’t true.

It IS true that a large number of people would like gun ownership limited. They want gun ownership limited to people who

• Are trained in the use and safety of guns

• Are not criminals

• Are not nuts (I use the technical term here)

The definition of, and requirements for, the above areas are the areas to focus on for discussion.

     It is true that any restriction, no matter how reasonable, will delay the ownership and use of guns by people who meet the above criteria. Such a delay may be irritating to those who qualify but help in keeping all of us safe.

So areas of discussion apply to the above characterization of a qualified gun owner.

• What kind of training is required? Should there be tests involved with granting gun ownership? Who should create these tests? Who should administer them? What is required for safety? Another test or mandatory equipment (gun locks, vaults, etc.)"?

• How is the lack of a criminal record determined? Not all states communicate information to federal, or other state, bureaus or administrators. What types of infractions should disqualify?

• What is “nuts”? A person undergoing, or who has undergone, therapy may be more sane and rational than someone who has never approached a counselor, psychiatrist, or psychologist. Some internal instabilities may be fully invisible. Should ranting on social media count?

Some of my own thoughts in the area of training in use and safety.

     Personally, I think that we should look to the example of Switzerland. Although I do not agree that every citizen should be required to serve in the military, I do agree that every person who has a gun, to be potentially used, should be trained.

     A week long course in use of the weapon, cleaning, dismantling and re-assembly, and movements under active fire — very similar to U.S. military training — should be required. Use of a gun is not limited to being able to point and shoot. Decisions about shooting need to be made calmly and quickly. This is especially hard for people totally unused to having weapons fired near, or around, them.

     Switzerland requires use of a gun vault in every home. These are not tiny tin boxes — the vaults are similar to bank vaults in the U.S. A home invader in Switzerland will never use the weapons present in the house. A child will never pick up a gun and shoot their sibling.

Summary

     There are many politicians and profit-oriented groups who try to move disasters and tragedies immediately to “thoughts” and “prayers” which may have some type of good behind them — but which do NOT directly address the problems. We won’t reach any type of approach to the problem without discussion. Discussions are squashed by lies about what groups of people believe. Within the United States, with 342 million people, we may have up to 342 million ideas about what can, and should, be done.

     The first step is discussion. Speaking. Listening. Understanding. Replying. and back to Speaking again.

Thanks for reading Ideas & Interpretations! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.