Socialism and Discrimination: An incompatibility with the Bill of Rights

Younger generations have always had that group trying to be “edgy” with their support for socialism, but it's becoming more mainstream in liberal politics. You have viable socialist leaning presidential candidates like Bernie Sanders, a full blown socialist in the Seattle city council, and democratic socialists running unopposed for legislative seats in several states.

To be fair, I don't think of socialists as red devils running around with a nefarious agenda, or just crying for “free” stuff because they're too lazy to work. Their intentions are legitimately noble, wanting to establish equality by giving everyone the same access to life's necessities regardless of differences such as demographics or economic class. The idea of achieving equality and putting safety nets in place affords everyone the chance to live their lives mostly worry free.

In application, however, socialism devolves into exactly the kind of system they'd claim to be championing against. Their naivety conveniently overlooks that in practice socialism's objective of establishing equality ends up being achieved through a sadistic elimination of those very differences that a free society can learn to value and appreciate.

A hard pill to swallow: Socialism is one of the most discriminatory examples of governing there is, as it is required in order for the model to survive. It requires like-minded thinking that shares the same goals and collective thought process in order to be achievable, which necessitates state sanctioned discrimination to preserve sustainability.

Consider this - The only successful models of socialism, such as the Nordic Model, have been in homogeneous societies lacking diversity and multiculturalism. Take Norway as an example:

Ethnicity: 91.5% white (83.2% being specifically Norwegian)

Religion: 71.5% Lutheran (another 6.7% being other Christian)

Urbanization: 81% urban population

Religion being one of the biggest factors, as Martin Schroder argues “Lutheranism promotes the idea of a nationwide community of believers and it promotes state involvement in economic and social life. This allows nationwide welfare solidarity and economic coordination”. Immigration also being key, as (despite some rhetoric) Europe in general is fairly xenophobic in comparison to the United States.

In more diverse societies, sustainability of socialism becomes far more complex as compliance isn't naturally afforded like you would find in one where ideals are mostly shared. In order for the model to survive you have two options – become selective with who can be apart of your society, or use force and manipulation to gain compliance. This leads to common traits or practices found in these systems of government:

-Heavy censorship

-An information bottleneck through nationalized networks

-Suppression of organized religion operating without state sponsorship

-Violent elimination of political opposition

-Labor Camps or Gulags

-Civilian disarmament

This requirement for selectiveness and compliance was also learned repeatedly on a smaller scale during the 1960's and 70's with hippie communes. Open admission and group infighting were the leading causes for financial ruin and failure. Taking the longest self-sustaining secular community in North America as an example – the Twin Oaks Community – their system has required rigid rules, labor requirements, and selective membership. There's further examples of writers providing personal tales living in communities, where they discuss the rigid life style and removal of folks with mental illness. Other longer running examples could include monks and monasteries, that are sustainable through like-minded religious faith and strict order. My favorite example being Dieter Duhm who had become disillusioned with socialist communities, as they ultimately failed for being far too open and indiscriminate in invitation.

Efforts to mix socialism into a free society are just disasters in the making. Why? Well, you have the above examples of what happens when people fail to contribute... but there's also the problem of having people like me that are vehemently opposed and will fight your policy tooth and nail to ensure you don't force something on me that I don't want. That ultimately means most efforts for creating socialist policies are doomed to failure with heavily flawed legislation and little cooperation to keep it afloat. Take the Affordable Care Act as an example. If this were in a society where everyone generally thinks the same, this is something that could have been tweaked and perfected (or just completely shifted to universal healthcare). However, in a society where everyone thinks differently, this legislation was born without a chance for survival. It was severely flawed, and rapidly became unsustainable without collective cooperation for a solution to fix it.

You place these examples on a grander scale, and you see why multicultural socialist governments become oppressive over time in order to maintain their system. The model can't afford to have people like me in it, therefore the only option is to exclude me or force my compliance. Forced compliance has been the trend, which is why most socialist takeovers follow a formula of *Step A) Revolution, Step B) Take away the guns, Step C) Run the propaganda machine*

All this considered, people are oblivious to that fact that identifying as a “democratic socialist” means you're a walking oxymoron. Rights you'd expect in a free and fair society can't sustainably coexist with collectivism in a place that boasts significant diversity.

A Myth For Justifying Regulation

When trying to push unconstitutional gun control legislation, it's common for advocates to perpetuate a myth that just won't seem to go away:

“Even the first amendment is regulated! You can't falsely yell “fire” in a theater!”

First off, lets ignore the fact that the 2^nd Amendment is already the most heavily regulated right we have.

But yes, the 1^st Amendment is regulated, but not in the way these folks claim it is. The truth can be summarized as “you don't have the right to victimize others”. For example, you cannot use free speech to commit libel, defamation, or perjury. You can, however, yell fire in a theater and it not be a crime. For it to be a crime, you would have to incite chaos or a disturbance where people, property, or business are harmed.

The point is that there are no words, terms, phrases, etc. that are illegal. It's someone/something being victimized that is... That does not justify banning specific firearms or making it nearly impossible to exercise your right to own or carry one. To draw a comparison to 1^st Amendment regulation, it would only justify limiting you from shooting an innocent person (already illegal!). The act of simply owning or carrying a firearm (of any type) does not have any negative affect on anyone or anything. It would require specific actions to do so.

Do Something(TM) vs. #DoSomething vs F@#$ing Doing Something

There's political motivation behind a lot of the debate and strategy … but do some solutions really need to be political or have an agenda?

-Do Something(TM): This is a political tactic, and a Twins of Liberty brainchild that acknowledges the guns rights community has not been proactive and been caught off-guard by the anti-rights movement. The idea is that gun control measures are emotionally driven by sensationalism in liberal media that's backed by billionaire Bloomberg, and people act as sheep by being coaxed into temporarily wanting this restriction placed in their lives. One of their motivators is the idea that they're the only ones offering a solution to an ongoing problem... which is kind of true, because all the guns rights community has offered is angry dissent, rather than their own ideas. Do Something(TM)'s premise is to offer legitimate alternatives in order to expand discussion beyond gun control measures. Turning it into a discussion counters the passionate wave the gun control movement relies on, and acts as a delay tactic for measures that are intended to strip us of our rights. It's a win-win approach that prevents stupid laws AND supports credible solutions.

-#DoSomething: An agenda, not a movement. This is not about actual solutions, but taking advantage of an opportunity granted by the death of children to pursue a gun ban. They don't care about actually protecting schools and decreasing violence. A real movement would be proposing a hundred valid solutions, yet they're only pursing one flawed idea. In fact, here's a good example of them ridiculing a perfectly legitimate security practice because it doesn't fit the narrative they're trying to produce - Texas official blames school shooting on too many exits and entrances. They took the Lt. Governor of Texas out of context, and made him sound like a complete fool. Controlled access points into buildings that can be monitored and have random bag searches is a well established practice in nearly every major office or government building. The idea of armed security or teachers is also treated as a joke, as if somehow active self-defense is more ridiculous than lying in a fetal position kissing your ass goodbye when faced with a threat. The fact they'll try to discredit valid solutions is proof of what they really care about.

One of the things that has me beating my head into the wall is “How do they get away with blocking actual solutions, yet still rally people under a #DoSomething banner?” The fact is, the typical liberal is not the intellectual that they pretend to be. They're very shallow and concerned about an image, which has to do with the fact that its majority is a younger demographic (I was even one of them before shifting towards libertarian ideology as I matured). They have excellent marketing that sells an image of being the good guys... being the ones with the only solution, being the ones that care, and holding a moral high ground. Image trumps actual logic and reason.

-F@#$ing Doing Something: This is one of my frustrations... We have easy ways to fix this. We could stop sensationalizing these actions in order to prevent copy cats that want to be immortalized. We could put School Resource Officers in every school, or train teachers that are willing to be armed if funding is an issue. But what about solutions that fall completely within the control of our own households?

I can't ignore the fact that irresponsible gun owners contribute to the problem. We're all quick to criticize someone in a picture that isn't practicing trigger discipline, or muzzling their friends in a video... but we don't say anything to those folks in our lives who we know keep a loaded gun in their closet that's accessible to a child. I don't care how well trained you THINK your children are, they shouldn't be anywhere near a gun without direct supervision. It's negligence to not lock up your firearms. Does punching in a digital combination add a few seconds to your reaction time for home defense? Sure. But is it logical to introduce a new threat in order to counter another? The added reaction time is worth the elimination of this realistic consequence. It's a fact accidents and many mass shootings could have been prevented with parents using a gun safe that their children don't have access to. F@#$ing do something to ensure it's not your child shooting up a school.

It's different after Santa Fe...

... because the parameters are all wrong. Look around. There are ten dead and ten injured from an attack on a school. The attacker unsuccessfully planted bombs and copied other Columbine elements. Yet the royal wedding is at the top of the headlines. The usual suspects have seemingly nothing to say. Some people in the gun rights crowd are trying to make hay out of Esquire going full gun grab, but come on, they were blatanly pro-repeal years ago.

After Parkland you couldn't go anywhere without hearing about it. Social media was full of people tripping over themselves to support confiscation afterwards.

This is the best evidence I've seen yet that:

• Gun grabbers don't cares about dead children unless the story is politcally convenient
• The media is required to make people care about the gun grabbing cause
• People are sheep with generally no opinions outside of those handed down from above
• Smoke screens work, doesn't matter what form they come in

Got any more of them royals to marry off?

The bar for labeling one's self a firearm "expert" is stunningly low

Fake firearms experts lurk in many forums and newspaper editorial sections. Here's one in the form of a likely unemployable liberal arts graduate at the time* former US Army Reserve Intel analyst. Mr. Diamond feels his unimpeachable credentials provide great sway to his opinion. Unfortunately, his opinion is that the dictatorial (and often completely asinine) rules imposed on military personnel are proof US firearms laws are not restrictive enough for civilians.

I am sure his shooting resume is quite impressive. After all, the annual** break from shuffling papers at a desk can't be his only firearms experience. Right? He seems pretty confident!

In a way, the number of fake firearms experts is a good thing. This is a sign that firearms are still ubiquitous enough that it's normal for many people to be exposed to them. A small percentage of those people will convince themselves this exposure makes them an expert. A small percentage of those fakes will write absurd articles for media editorial sections.

I just wish they'd shut up already.

* Yes, this is super snarky. Sorry, everyone I knew from my time as an officer candidate (see, I am an "expert" too!) that ended up in Intel had unemployable degrees in the civilian world. Imperfect sample size, but my blog.

** I am not sure what it is for the Army, only the Navy.

It's Time for Something(TM)

I believed in the power of doing something(TM) long before the inagural post to this blog. Given another mass shooting at a school, it's once again an opportune time to push something that won't hurt our constitutional rights as fast as we possibly can. What to do?

It's obvious this time. SRO's work. An SRO got the job done in Dixon, IL a few days ago. SROs have done the job in the past. There are plenty of reasons to believe an SRO or another good guy with a gun will successfully get the job done in the future.

I am ready to get behind a school security spending bill. I hardly care what's in it as long as it doesn't compromise our rights. It does need to provide cover to prevent the serious attempt at a gun grab that's mere hours away. Federal funding for SROs is a possibility.

There are about 98,271 schools in the United States. Assuming it costs about $100,000 a year to pay, equip, train, etc. an average law enforcement officer, we could place an officer in every school for about $9.8 billion. That's about 1.5% of the DoD budget proposed for 2019 earlier this year. Certainly Democrats can get behind spending a mere 1.5% of the DoD's budget to create 98,271 strong union jobs to protect the children?

If they poison it with a gun grab or refuse to play ball, there is plenty there to make hay with.

Not willing to go that far? Fine, provide a smaller pool of funding for security spending as districts see fit. I am cool with that too.

Remember, after Parkland the House GOP refused to consider new gun control proposals because they already passed FixNICS. Friends, that's a successful smoke screen! We can do that again without eroding gun rights.

The Court of Public Opinion

On May 10^th, 2018 Emm poised the question “Which amendment would die after the second?”. He cited the 5^th amendment, however I'd propose this one is already effectively diminished. As one of our most valuable rights due process establishes the requirement of being innocent until proven guilty, but the close-minded mob that has entrenched itself in the internet and social media has almost effectively negated this. An accusation backed by a wall of text or a series of posts is all that's needed for a conviction. No evidence, no trial, no objective process for confirming guilt. We collectively read a story that appears to have merit and credibility, and attack with torches and pitchforks until a life is ruined. Is there evidence that has been properly and lawfully gathered, then systematically processed and reviewed by attorneys and judges qualified to do so? No one cares. They read what they want to without a sense of skepticism, and predetermine the outcome of ending careers, destroying families, and imprisoning the population based on beliefs that are void of facts! Worse yet, those in the judicial system cave to this peer pressure in order to preserve their own careers. It has become a repeat of 1950's McCarthyism, but without any clear opposition to end the practice.

Why is that? I believe it's like Roman gladiatorial combat. It's not about justice, but instead people enjoying bloodshed as a sick form of entertainment. We don't care about real justice, we just enjoy others experiencing misery that's worse than our own. This small minded mentality ignores that YOU could be the next man in the arena.