True Cost of Gun Ownership

Michael Olenick’s post The Lesson of Newtown – Time to Charge for the True Cost of Gun Ownership (posted on NakedCapitalism) offers a pragmatic solution to the “gun rights or violence” dilemma. Olenick writes,

Rather than parsing the Second Amendment one more time there is an easier approach, one typically favored by conservative gun owners for other public policy issues: end cost-shifting. Force those who chose to own guns to bear the full cost of the mayhem their hobby unleashes. Ending the gun subsidies will eventually end the gun violence.

Olenick notes that,

This solution does not violate the Second Amendment: people are still free to own all the guns they want; they just have to pay full freight for the cost of guns to society.

Further he explains how his solution also leverages the right-wing’s propensity for use taxes:

Right-wing politicians seem to have equal zeal for taxation based on use and against cost-shifting, so it will be interesting to hear them defend why non gun owners should subsidize the massive cost of widespread gun ownership. I can’t wait to hear the Tea Baggers explain why the cost of open gun ownership should be externalized to the families of the slain children, those who survived, and all the other terrorized first graders, teachers, and parents in the country.

I realize that to many people their guns are precious. Guess what: I think my first-grade daughter is precious too. . . I know it’s brazen but I’m even willing to say our kids are a hell of a lot more precious than your guns.

Read all of his post here. The fact is that ethically, all rights are not created equal. Our right to life, safe schools, safe homes and safe neighborhoods trumps others’ right to own weapons.  Gun ownership violates these basic human rights – at a huge cost to our society. Gun owners should bear this cost.

You may also like Myth of Objective Reporting and Are Women Human?

Unfair By Design

Americans are notorious for not wanting to look at the systemic problems underlying many of our social ills. For example, we’d rather believe that if we vote for the right politician or political party our problems will be solved – rather than tackle the underlying systemic problem of campaign finance reform and lack of term limits that keeps politicians of both parties beholden to big financial, military and corporate interests. Far easier to turn politics into a competitive sport where we pick a political party more or less like a sports team and cheer for our side to win.

We’d rather tell ourselves that charities should take care of those made poor and those who struggle with health problems or tragedies, rather than look at the huge wealth transfers (regressive rates, deductions) for the middle class, elites and corporations designed to take wealth unfairly from others. Wealth transfers are designed into our tax code. They can be designed out as well.

We’d rather think that millions of home foreclosures were due to the personal failings of homeowners rather than the predatory lending practices, high risk hedging and multi-trillion dollar bail-outs of the too-big-to-fail-banks encouraged by the repeal of banking regulation laws. This mortgage boom-bust was designed by lawmakers acting in the interests of the financial industry.

We’d rather tell ourselves that tolerance and warm feelings toward people of color will solve systems of white privilege and racism, rather than face and dismantle the wealth-transferring discrimination built into our legal, educational and corporate systems.

Many work for or against legalizing marriage for all, rather than acknowledge that systemically, the social benefits assigned arbitrarily to those who are married could and should be made available to all, independent of marital status, and how conventional marriage creates poverty for women and children by design.

Others want to believe that raising the eligibility age for social security or medicare is not the same as privatizing them (meaning giving all the attendant fees and insurance dollars to corporations) when it is exactly that. Health care, like clean water is a basic human right. Without adequate social safety nets crime, corruption and violence will radically increase in our society. Not a country or a world I want to live in.

It’s no different for religious institutions. Within the Catholic church, for example, many feel that ordaining women will solve the governance problem in the church. But it is the ordination system itself that allows for one voice to trump all within a community. Those who are ordained in this system are formed in such a way that they are predisposed to elitism, privilege, self-focus with no accountability. This creates a situation that fosters corruption and abuse. Lack of financial transparency within the church similarly promotes unethical and immoral behavior. Ordaining women will not change these fundamental flaws designed into this system.

Our refusal to look at or discuss underlying systems persists because doing so would take time, require self examination and is complex. It’s easier to focus on personal charity, personal spirituality or personal failings of high profile individuals. But this is to fail ethically and morally because we are all interconnected and interdependent. We either work to transform unjust systems or we are part of the corruption.

Refusing to learn about systemic injustice makes us morally culpable. There are no easy answers or quick fixes. However, this doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t endeavor to work for systemic change. We’ve had the moral courage and tenacity to make systemic changes in the past (ending slavery, women voting, environmental laws, human rights, etc.). A better future for everyone requires it.

You may also like Time to Tax Wall Street and True Freedom.

Life of Pi

Yan Martel’s book – now movie, The Life of Pi is an exciting and entertaining story. But better still is the question proposed to the viewer at the end: which is the better story?

For belief in God, the viewer is encouraged to ask the same question – which life is the more exciting, intriguing, compelling life? The one with the viewpoint embracing belief in God or the random life, purposeless life without God? And it’s not simply intellectual assent to the existence of God that is being asked here. What is being asked is our willingness or capacity to trust, thereby flinging ourselves headlong into life itself – with all of its unknowns and all of its risks.

For myself, I couldn’t imagine returning to life directed my own vision or desires. That was too small, too gray, too safe, too hopeless. Life directed by existence or reality itself (God if you will) is far more exciting, colorful and bewitching than anything I could have dreamed up. Once you taste champagne and caviar . . .

You may also like Tasting Caviar and Journey of the Universe.