Monday, December 19, 2005

Daniel's Monday Musing

If guns don't prevent violence then how come the same liberals who are willing to attack ladies wearing fur, empty SUV parking lots and businessmen at the WTO aren't out attacking the local NRA meeting?

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

I need a gun

Tony said...

Beautiful analysis.

Hey liberal gun grabbers: If you are so sure that guns dont prevent violence, I DARE you to put this sticker on your door: http://patriotshop.us/product_info.php?cPath=21&products_id=31

Kaelri said...

I would really like to know how you define "liberalism." Based on reading your blog over the last few weeks, the only pattern I can see is that you apply the label "liberal" to pretty much anything and anyone you disagree with.

Tony said...

If you refer to me, then you are incorrect. There are plenty of conservatives with whom I disagree on various policies.

That said, gun control is a liberal position, in the modern sense of the word (neoliberal).

And I find that liberals like to attack the definitions of words that most people have accepted the definition of (see Orwell, George and Marx, Karl). You can argue what liberal is or isnt all you want, but the fact remains that it isn't conservative to attempt to erode our constitutional rights to bear arms.

As for you, as I read your posts over the past few months you seem very uncomfortable with the label of liberal, and seem to want to be more of a free thinker. Good. That combination will eventually lead you to be a conservative, as liberalism is based on emotion (what should be in a perfect world) rather than reality.

I can give you an example from the aforementioned guns example. Liberals want to take away guns (eg, Canada, England, Australia's liberals all did so). The motivation is good: reduce or end gun violence. The result (reality) is horrific: violent crime increases exponentially as the people are left defenseless and the criminals know that they are defenseless.

Do liberals modify their policy (take away the guns) to conform to reality (that crime is up and people are victimized) and therefore reverse the policy? No. Because the emotion (fear) overrides the logic and keeps them in bondage to fear and failed policy.

And that is what that little sticker I linked to above says in a nutshell.

Kaelri said...

Not directed at anyone in particular - though Daniel's the most common invoker of the label - but your response was quite interesting. Thank you.

('Fore I forget: of the three nations you named, only in the UK did the gun prohibition have a negative impact on gun crime; in the other two, the crime rate, already low and in decline, was relatively unaffected by the ban. Danke schön, Wikipedia.)

In your eyes, then, liberalism is idealism over realism. Valid. For what it's worth, though, I've found that support for the Iraq War et al. is based more on emotionally-driven patriotism than any realistic analysis of its causes and effects, regardless of whether said analysis actually exists.

Gun control is an interesting example. Going by a strict interpretation, the uninfringed right to bear arms is an extremely liberal idea, especially as a constitutional insurance - and especially in the modern world; the U.S. is seen as a particularly conservative nation, but is in fact quite a ways beyond even Western societies in terms of gun freedom. Yet to defend the Second Amendment is, colloquially, a conservative trait. Curious, isn't it?

So yeah, I hate labels in practice. I am liberal, but if I identify myself as such, you and others invariably draw some conclusions about me that aren't true. There's a lot of variation, and it isn't a problem - in real political discourse, people are happy if not eager to explain their beliefs and their ideas, and the only niche labels have in that is to burden participants with fluctuating preconceptions that force us to waste time misunderstanding each other when they turn out to be inaccurate.