Left & Right Both Get It Wrong. Consistently!

/Rant-ON/

"Gun violence" is one of the most frequently used phrases in the news media after every violent attack by an "active shooter" terrorist (or hate-filled fringe-dwelling extremist, or murderous ex-boyfriend). "Gun laws will change!" is often the generic Left-leaning politician's response. Gun owners' rights and constitutional protections are the knee jerk response from the right. Meanwhile, on another political battlefield, "Right to Life!" is the cry raised on the Right, and the Left replies that women have rights to their own bodies, and that forcing someone to carry the growing fetus resulting from a shatteringly violent sexual assault is inhumane and breaches that victim's rights. And, again, with sides chosen, both sides move further and further from each other. Throwing epithets at each other and seeking to ensure "their side" has more votes in next election to ensure "their side" wins both the election and, thus, the opportunity to further shift our massive, unmanageable, body of laws and regulations toward their beliefs and goals. And thus, the Gordian knot of federal laws and regulations keeps rapidly accreting, growing more and more unstable and unusable, with unintended consequences flinging out to intersect lives across our nation (and world). We talk past each other. Constantly. And we miss the problems, because we run immediately to our prepared positions, rather than sitting down and thinking, by ourselves, and then reasoning with others who disagree with us. We don't want to allow the invitation "Come, let us reason together..." to gain any traction, or we might lose hard-fought ground in our philosophical fisticuffs.

Violence is one of our biggest problems. Not "gun violence" nor "knife violence" nor "domestic violence" — violence, whether against other races, against the residents of hated nations, against those practicing other religions, against women, against our family, against the poor, against the homeless, against "others" (they're not like us, or at least they're not "us"), against the rich (e.g., kidnappings, assaults, etc., 'cause they've got lots more than us), or "going postal" in attacks on co-workers, supervisors, or other superiors at work or former work site, even "just" a stupid case of "road rage."   Violence. Stop diminishing it and hitching it to your political aspirations! Our American culture, and many of the subcultures hosted within it, breed violence. It's in all our media, from games to movies to news clips with horrified news-readers/entertainers for 30 or 60 seconds, maybe 90 seconds if they're really outraged. We briefly note it, assign blame, and move on to the cute local story or the weather or the latest political scandal, and of course the requisite advertisements, which are, after all, the point. Ugh. Violence is the problem. Don't channel it into some other cause. Recognize it. Figure out how to deal with it. Don't just run for the prepared trenches and shout slogans. Blaming inanimate objects is ridiculous. Violence is the problem. Human nature hasn't changed in recorded history. Evil exists. People act on their fears and hatred. Governance matters. Good governance is hard. There are no easy solutions. Philosophical battle lines don't help, either.

Whenever "life" begins and a "human being" comes into existence (e.g., ensouled at conception or ensouled once brain development becomes sufficiently advanced to enable ensoulment, or once a human baby is successfully born into this world and breathes on their own, with active, organized brain activity, etc.), each life matters. Each life is worth protecting, worth "fighting for." Yet it currently requires a living female human body with intact and functional womb to support and grow that tiny ball of a few cells into a birthed baby. That baby is worth finding ways to support it and keep it alive, thriving, learning, growing. But does that baby's right to a viable chance at life outweigh the rights of the woman who would be forced to carry it in her womb? Especially if that pregnancy was the result of rape?! Again, we rapidly run to our prepared positions and shout at each other, and, in some extreme cases, literally attack those who don't agree with our beliefs. One of my favorite authors of science fiction, Lois McMaster Bujold, wrote about a very different solution in one of her book series (the Vorkosigan series): the "uterine replicator" — a standalone device into which a fetus may be surgically transferred (or grown from start) which replicates the human womb and provides all the support, nutrients, and protection required to successfully bring each fetus through all stages of development until ready to "birth" and join the world. A protected environment in which treatments for various genetic abnormalities could be applied. A technologically-derived alternative to enable us to get past the prepared lines and address the next real problem: WHO TAKES CARE OF THIS KID?! People's lives matter. People's rights matter. We've fought wars to ensure our freedoms and inalienable rights (and their consequent responsibilities, which most of us glibly ignore). But our problems are not simple, they don't yield to simple "solutions." But beyond that complexity, that intertwingledness, we lose sight of the real, underlying issues.

We get lost in our disagreements, and forget our basic social pact with each other, reinforced each time we pledge allegiance to our flag (a relatively recent practice, yet worth remembering). Our commonplace pledge of allegiance should remind us of our forebearers' swearing the Oath of Allegiance when they emigrated from "the old country" to this nation. My rights and your rights, ALL of our rights must coexist with everyone else's rights. We are each (and all) responsible for ensuring that not only our own rights are protected but that others' (with whom we disagree) rights also get protected. We can each believe whatever we want, but when it comes to acting on our beliefs, those actions MUST BE CONSTRAINED by the rights and freedoms of others. If your rights aren't guaranteed, then mine might not be either. NOBODY has the right to impinge upon others' freedoms. And nobody has the FREEDOM to impinge on anyone else's freedom or rights. So we're stuck. We're all on the same big blue marble of a cloud-covered lifeboat, falling in our orbit around our star ("the sun"). 

If you haven't paid attention to it recently, I'd suggest spending an hour some weekend (how about this one? Already booked, or spent? Then next weekend, right?) reviewing some of the most famous representations of, documents defining, and stories about, our mutual freedoms, starting with the art of an American from the early to mid-20th century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms_(Norman_Rockwell) Norman Rockwell captured, for many, the essence of the American citizens' freedom. But don't stop there, that's to help engage your heart. Now, for your mind (and to refresh your beliefs) head over to your favorite copy of the United States of America's Constitution and other founding documents. Even if you're not an American, nor located in the USA, they're worth reading and pondering. If you don't have a favorite copy — Shame on you! Get one, NOW! — here's a starting place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence and for those who prefer stories and biographies as the means to get their history, here's a place to start finding what you need:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States.

By the way, if you're writing a new Constitution for your country, or working on fixing a broken Constitution (or complete lack thereof), may I respectfully suggest you very seriously reconsider our enshrinement of political parties, and maybe consider declawing the damned things? They seem to take on a life of their own, and rapidly diverge from actually representing their "members" and rapidly becoming a powerful vehicle for those with fiscal power and/or political power to leverage things and start taking over stuff they shouldn't be allowed to touch! At least that's my opinion. And that Electoral College nonsense? Yeah, no, we're not in horse and buggy days anymore (hopefully never again), and that's not at all necessary (nor, I would posit, desirable) without the kinds of travel constraints extant at the founding of the USA. And, yeah, I know there were significant other reasons for it, but I think those reasons should be even less desirable now than they were then. Also, if I were you, I'd seriously consider changing how the pool of potential candidates for election gets chosen. Leaving it to parties and power-brokers is, frankly, absolutely insane. I'd strongly recommend Sortition ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition ) as a much more sensible approach. Use sortition (like selecting grand juries in USA, but nationwide, all registered voters) to select a large pool of candidates (maybe a dozen or more), then put 'em all on the primary ballot. Investigators swarming all over their lives? I'd say it's a feature, not a bug. Top three primary election vote winners go on final ballot for main election, winner takes office. You should WANT candidates who DON'T WANT the job. The politicians who'd do most anything to get the job, yeah, avoid those. Life throws enough trouble our way, don't need to ask for more trouble, and setting up a class of politicians and string-pullers is not the way to ensure tranquility, nor to get good governance. The luck of the draw can cause problems, including out of control ego-maniacs, but so can most other approaches to selecting candidates. Shorter time slots in office (the ultimate term limit when combined with selection by sortition) is a better answer than others. Again, my opinion. 

Another favorite author, Mackey Chandler, took another approach in his "April" science fiction series of books: the Mitsubishi-3 (M3) habitat (large orbiting satellite community, a spinning space station) is small enough that the residents decided to forego laws, for the most part. Most everyone agrees that if you intentionally try to break the pressure hull protecting everyone from the vacuum of space, you deserve to exit the station sans space suit or protective equipment and enjoy the freedom of the cold vacuum of space in your skivvies. Customs, not a growing body of laws, are the rule. Other offenses tend to result in being banished from the habitat (the easy way, sent down the gravity well to the slum-ball by shuttle, rather than the hard way out the airlock in your skivvies). If you agree to pay taxes, then you get one vote. If you don't pay taxes, you don't vote. The Assembly of all taxpaying voters determines all punishments and governance decisions beyond the normal care of the habitat (which is owned by Mitsubishi in these stories and administered by the Company's chosen Administrator). Direct democracy of a type even the ancient Greeks of antiquity would understand. And if all else fails, they decided to allow the duel to end disagreements that couldn't be addressed more reasonably.  I must admit there is a certain fascination with this fictional approach to self-governance. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to scale all that well, in my estimation. 

Political philosophies seem to be almost as important to folk these days as their NFL or college football teams (or proper FIFA Association football, aka soccer, teams if you're in the rest of the world). Interest in forming theocracies seems on the rise, both within Christendom and in regions where Islam is the dominant form of religion. History seems to show that theocracies tend to self-perpetuate as a particularly virulent form of oligarchism, with dire results for most people not in the highest levels of the ruling priesthood. Look up Dark Ages for one idea of how all these approaches to political governance can go very wrong. I personally suspect that's why the New Testament warns believers "Render unto Caesar...."  Separation of Church and State is well worth protecting, again, in my opinion.  

Democracy, in some form, seems the most desirable approach, large-scale, to governance, although it often descends into kleptocracy which is just another form of virulent tyranny (or oligarchy if you're not strong enough on your own to take over, just yet). Monarchy can be fairly stable, with enough controls in place, yet it seems to me it tends ultimately, if not sufficiently constrained by democratic governance structures, toward tyranny, or oligarchy once the tyrant is overthrown. Communism and full-blown Socialism clearly don't work well, in my opinion, over the long haul, and leave a LOT to be desired by most individuals, eventually. Maybe the EU, and especially Scandinavia will prove me wrong on Socialism, but I don't think so. There's already enough democratic elements to their governments that hopefully they'll last and thrive. Communism also tends back toward oligarchy and tyranny, eventually. Timocracy (look it up), plutocracy (another form of oligarchy, as far as I can see), tyranny and oligarchy aren't very desirable for most upon whom they are inflicted (if you're not in the privileged ruling class of landowners, oligarchs, or the tyrant him- or her-self). If you ARE one of the ruling class (however small that class may be), hey, life's good. Until it's not, and the pitchforks and tar and feathers come out. Or the ropes, or AR-15s, or the knife in the back, or the poison, or...., well, you get the idea.

A lot of folk are tending toward variations on the theme of anarchism in their political thinking. It seems to me that if you go far enough to the extremes of either Right or Left, you find yourself around back in the realms of chaos and anarchism. I'd argue that many brands of Libertarianism have been tending toward variations on anarchism in the past few years, and especially toward a particular brand of anarcho-capitalism which I suspect is really just a front for a movement intended to transition to plutocracy and, eventually, oligarchism by the string-pullers behind the scenes. But I've been known to have a fanciful imagination at times. For that matter, most forms of technocracy and techno-utopian idealists seem to me to be just another variant on the theme of oligarchism. And, hey, why not...I mean if none of us is strong enough (right now) to become the tyranical ruler we'd each like to become, then let's team up and be the ruling elite class (until one of us overcomes the others and moves to full tyranical rule). Right? I mean, it's a dog-eat-dog world, so why not?!  Ugh! Well, maybe we just need lots of little groups, each to their own...yeah, I think the term for that is Balkanization, and it doesn't lead anywhere you or I really want to go. (If you do want to go there, CHANGE YOUR FREAKIN' MIND, you idiot!) So, where does that leave us?

That leaves me wanting to avoid all the political philosophies, do our best to keep Democracy alive in our Republic here in USA, and don't ever let the tyrants and oligarchs (whomever they may be) win for more than one short term in office!  And it leaves me thinking that there are some very good reasons for the Second Amendment to our Constitution of the United States of America. I guess, for the moment, if you simply MUST box me in, color me tending toward Radical Centrism because it's as far (and not much further) from my actual position on the weird 1-dimensional political spectrum than any other political theory or political philosophy. By the way, who dreamt up that 1-D nonsense?! All our world's problems are high-dimensionality and often intertwingled. If we're all going to extremes, I prefer the middle, thanks anyway. #drivetothecenter

In the end, I think it's worth remembering (and practicing) the Golden Rule as I learned it from the Bible as a child (definitely NOT the Hollywood/Wall-Street/greed-driven version).

/Rant-OFF/