OPINION: Income Inequality and Gun Control - a view from ignorance
There are things wrong with our country. There always will be. There are a number of reasons for this. Foremost is the reason that "wrong" is subjective and someone will always be dissatisfied no matter what we do. Beyond that, there are just so many different things happening at once in a thriving and evolving nation such as this.
I only want to touch on a couple of the items that are disrupting the happiness of our citizens right now. First of all there is the income inequality and the fact that the big money basically owns the government. This is a status that we cannot easily overcome, largely because of the truth in the old adage, "money talks..." It's hard to compete with the loud mouth of money when the people who stand to gain from corporations maintaining control have most of it, and the majority of Americans, who would benefit from a more equitable arrangement, have less money than the few doing all the talking. It's a hard nut to crack, especially because so many of us are so heavily influenced by the media, and media can be bought just like anything else (except Bernie Sanders).
Another thing I want to mention again is the gun control measures put into place by President Obama's executive order.
So to the first point, let me say this: Many people of a conservative sort believe that things are fine in the government the way they are, with super PACs and corporations calling the shots. The problems, these people believe, are in all the liberals trying to give away our nation's wealth to people who aren't putting in the work. They believe that it's people trying to help others without reward that is blocking the progress of our otherwise great nation. To them I say this: the only progress the big money, big corporations and billionaire families want to make is the progress of the upward motion of their fortune. They want more. They already have far more than anyone on Earth needs, yet all they want is more. More money, more power, more land, more income. It's a sickness. It's an addiction. They care about the greatness of the nation insofar as it pads their bank accounts. I honestly believe that there is an overwhelming feeling of "I'm okay, so we're okay" in the mindset of the obscenely rich. It's like they believe that their success is a reflection of how well the country is doing. Like they're only looking at the GDP, even though most of it is in their own bank books. They need to take a good hard look at what they have, and then think about what they really need. I don't believe that people should work hard (or inherit billions without doing a DAMN thing) only to have to give it away. I don't think that's fair! That's not what our country is based on. But neither is the CEO of a company making 400 times what its lowest-paid workers make. There's really a limit to how much a person or his family needs. A family doesn't need the excessive gluttony of a fleet of private jets. A family doesn't need its own railway system or a state to call their own. I don't believe this is something that should be mandated or somehow forced by the government. In our capitalist society (& I don't think capitalism is the problem) it is up to the people and their abilities and creativity to excel in business and money-making ventures. It's one of the things that makes this country great. It's one of the things that leads innovation. The problem comes with the greed of the people who get "too much" and then don't know how to live without it. Excess, gluttony, greed, obscene income inequality. What will make this country great again is some decency on the part of the big money. A decision made by corporate leaders to put more of the profits back into the company or back into the city or state or country, to share the excess with those who allowed them to achieve their success. It seems as though these people are looking at it as a game, a game that they have won. I got all your money. Ha ha, I win. But it's not. It's a give and take. Your success depends on the people who made you a success. Now can you maintain your business and keep giving the people a quality product or service, maintain your relationships with your customer base, and improve your offerings while providing a comfortable living for your family, including giving them everything they need? Probably. Do you need to keep expanding as much as possible, branching out, farming out work to other countries to save yourself money while providing, in many cases, increasingly poor products to your customers until you get caught? Do you need to buy out any competition so you can set your own price for your substandard goods? Do you need to buy islands and cruise ships and set yourself apart entirely from the riff-raff that is your customer base? I really don't see why. Sure, we've all marveled at the excess of certain extravagant individuals throughout history. It's interesting to see the luxurious homes and castles and other attractions built by those who have gone to excess. It might seem like a bit much, but it's neat to see. And that is part of what drives capitalism and the innovation that our world has seen push us to this technologically advanced state that we're in. But when it becomes world conquest, that's when things start falling apart. Julius Caesar was an extravagant king who liked the best things for himself. But he also provided accommodations for his subjects. The innovation driven by the needs of his people and the greatness of his successes have given modern society a lot to be thankful for. But when he tried to expand the Roman Empire beyond the reach of his power, it began to fall apart. Our world would not be what it is without the contributions made by Rome. It is important that they existed. But it is also very important that they failed at some point. Napoleon was revolutionary in the ways of war, and we have learned a lot from him about tactics. But he also had to fail at some point because world conquest just isn't going to work.
The rich have had their go at it. Controlling the government (except for when the people spoke out and elected and then re-elected a Democrat to the Presidency due to being sick of the conservatives destroying our world reputation) has gotten them the obscene excesses and luxuries they're just so sure they need, and it would be criminal for them to have to be without. Nobody is especially happy with the way things are. Getting back to my original point, there are things WRONG with this country. So now let's take a different angle. Let's try a different tactic. Having the power and controlling Congress didn't make you happy. It wasn't enough. Let the lesson you get from that be that it will NEVER be enough. Let's let the liberals have a stab at it. Let's see how we all do if we help each other out, instead of just helping ourselves. Let's see how happy we can all be if the haves give back so the have-nots have not quite so little. I think an increase in minimum wage is scary to the top people, but it's not much of a dent in the ridiculously inequitable difference between your income and theirs. You can do without a little bit more in order for them to be able to feed their families and put gas in their cars. You've had it your way and it sucks for everyone but you, so let's try it another way.
On gun control, I say the same thing. We've done it your way. People are being murdered all the time. Let's try it another way. Without even challenging the 2nd Amendment, just putting some discretion and restrictions in place, let's see how it goes for a little while. If it's a terrible disaster and we find that we were wrong and need to remove the limitations, we can always vote to change things back. We will never lose control to a totalitarian government because there are too many places and ways that we can put a stop to it. The military isn't going to blindly follow orders of a dictator telling them to put us all in prison camps, or whatever it is you think they're going to do to us if we let them "take our guns." The individuals of the military are among the first who are going to stand up for the rights of the people. particularly if we stand up for them, and ensure that we show them respect for the sacrifices they have made for us, including helping them get back on their feet when they get back to the private sector. Putting limitations on the type of guns citizens are allowed to purchase is not going to put us in danger. I know I can't convince anyone of that, so I'm not going to wrench my head off trying to. But if you let gun control take effect without making such a fight out of it, we will soon see just how bad it is, and we can deal with it then. At least let compassion have a go at it. It's not a plot, with a secret military poised and waiting for the moment that you aren't allowed to buy an additional AR-15, and then they're going to jump out and enslave us all. I've never even heard a single thing about anyone going out and taking any guns away from anyone. The controls I believe in are simply about the weapons that are made available for sale without limits. Just think how gratifying it will be when you get your "I told you so" moment and everyone has to concede that you were right and the laws need to change back. Of course your immediate response to that is, "but it's too late by then." No, it's never too late. Liberals don't want to change the entire nature of our country and its government. You might be thinking of anarchists. We love our country and we only want it to be better. I know you want it to be better also, but this is one way in which we are not better off, and there is no evidence you can provide to support your belief that mass shootings would be worse if we have effective gun controls in place. There is one way you can prove it: let gun control exist. That is the one way you can prove that it is a bad idea. If it's proven that it's not a bad idea, and that we can exist successfully under such circumstances, be big enough to admit when you're wrong. Accept the fact that, though your intentions may have been good, wanting to protect the freedom of our national citizens, that was not the key. I think too often people get hung up on specifics. They get hung up on method rather than result. People say that their "freedom" is being taken away, when all they mean is their freedom to own however many, however deadly firearms they want. It's a bad idea. The 2nd Amendment mentions "a well-regulated militia" being necessary to protect the freedoms of our people. That is "well-regulated," which is different than just anybody who wants to arm their own personal militia. That is not regulated, and there is no training or sense of duty beyond personal preference required. This is not what the Amendment was meant for. And I cannot overstate the fact that this Amendment is NOT being infringed upon by implementing some gun control. The freedom to own obscene killing machines is a small price to pay for the lives it will save by not allowing anyone else to own them either. As for the people who say that "then only criminals will have guns" see my blog "I Have a Gun."
I only want to touch on a couple of the items that are disrupting the happiness of our citizens right now. First of all there is the income inequality and the fact that the big money basically owns the government. This is a status that we cannot easily overcome, largely because of the truth in the old adage, "money talks..." It's hard to compete with the loud mouth of money when the people who stand to gain from corporations maintaining control have most of it, and the majority of Americans, who would benefit from a more equitable arrangement, have less money than the few doing all the talking. It's a hard nut to crack, especially because so many of us are so heavily influenced by the media, and media can be bought just like anything else (except Bernie Sanders).
Another thing I want to mention again is the gun control measures put into place by President Obama's executive order.
So to the first point, let me say this: Many people of a conservative sort believe that things are fine in the government the way they are, with super PACs and corporations calling the shots. The problems, these people believe, are in all the liberals trying to give away our nation's wealth to people who aren't putting in the work. They believe that it's people trying to help others without reward that is blocking the progress of our otherwise great nation. To them I say this: the only progress the big money, big corporations and billionaire families want to make is the progress of the upward motion of their fortune. They want more. They already have far more than anyone on Earth needs, yet all they want is more. More money, more power, more land, more income. It's a sickness. It's an addiction. They care about the greatness of the nation insofar as it pads their bank accounts. I honestly believe that there is an overwhelming feeling of "I'm okay, so we're okay" in the mindset of the obscenely rich. It's like they believe that their success is a reflection of how well the country is doing. Like they're only looking at the GDP, even though most of it is in their own bank books. They need to take a good hard look at what they have, and then think about what they really need. I don't believe that people should work hard (or inherit billions without doing a DAMN thing) only to have to give it away. I don't think that's fair! That's not what our country is based on. But neither is the CEO of a company making 400 times what its lowest-paid workers make. There's really a limit to how much a person or his family needs. A family doesn't need the excessive gluttony of a fleet of private jets. A family doesn't need its own railway system or a state to call their own. I don't believe this is something that should be mandated or somehow forced by the government. In our capitalist society (& I don't think capitalism is the problem) it is up to the people and their abilities and creativity to excel in business and money-making ventures. It's one of the things that makes this country great. It's one of the things that leads innovation. The problem comes with the greed of the people who get "too much" and then don't know how to live without it. Excess, gluttony, greed, obscene income inequality. What will make this country great again is some decency on the part of the big money. A decision made by corporate leaders to put more of the profits back into the company or back into the city or state or country, to share the excess with those who allowed them to achieve their success. It seems as though these people are looking at it as a game, a game that they have won. I got all your money. Ha ha, I win. But it's not. It's a give and take. Your success depends on the people who made you a success. Now can you maintain your business and keep giving the people a quality product or service, maintain your relationships with your customer base, and improve your offerings while providing a comfortable living for your family, including giving them everything they need? Probably. Do you need to keep expanding as much as possible, branching out, farming out work to other countries to save yourself money while providing, in many cases, increasingly poor products to your customers until you get caught? Do you need to buy out any competition so you can set your own price for your substandard goods? Do you need to buy islands and cruise ships and set yourself apart entirely from the riff-raff that is your customer base? I really don't see why. Sure, we've all marveled at the excess of certain extravagant individuals throughout history. It's interesting to see the luxurious homes and castles and other attractions built by those who have gone to excess. It might seem like a bit much, but it's neat to see. And that is part of what drives capitalism and the innovation that our world has seen push us to this technologically advanced state that we're in. But when it becomes world conquest, that's when things start falling apart. Julius Caesar was an extravagant king who liked the best things for himself. But he also provided accommodations for his subjects. The innovation driven by the needs of his people and the greatness of his successes have given modern society a lot to be thankful for. But when he tried to expand the Roman Empire beyond the reach of his power, it began to fall apart. Our world would not be what it is without the contributions made by Rome. It is important that they existed. But it is also very important that they failed at some point. Napoleon was revolutionary in the ways of war, and we have learned a lot from him about tactics. But he also had to fail at some point because world conquest just isn't going to work.
The rich have had their go at it. Controlling the government (except for when the people spoke out and elected and then re-elected a Democrat to the Presidency due to being sick of the conservatives destroying our world reputation) has gotten them the obscene excesses and luxuries they're just so sure they need, and it would be criminal for them to have to be without. Nobody is especially happy with the way things are. Getting back to my original point, there are things WRONG with this country. So now let's take a different angle. Let's try a different tactic. Having the power and controlling Congress didn't make you happy. It wasn't enough. Let the lesson you get from that be that it will NEVER be enough. Let's let the liberals have a stab at it. Let's see how we all do if we help each other out, instead of just helping ourselves. Let's see how happy we can all be if the haves give back so the have-nots have not quite so little. I think an increase in minimum wage is scary to the top people, but it's not much of a dent in the ridiculously inequitable difference between your income and theirs. You can do without a little bit more in order for them to be able to feed their families and put gas in their cars. You've had it your way and it sucks for everyone but you, so let's try it another way.
On gun control, I say the same thing. We've done it your way. People are being murdered all the time. Let's try it another way. Without even challenging the 2nd Amendment, just putting some discretion and restrictions in place, let's see how it goes for a little while. If it's a terrible disaster and we find that we were wrong and need to remove the limitations, we can always vote to change things back. We will never lose control to a totalitarian government because there are too many places and ways that we can put a stop to it. The military isn't going to blindly follow orders of a dictator telling them to put us all in prison camps, or whatever it is you think they're going to do to us if we let them "take our guns." The individuals of the military are among the first who are going to stand up for the rights of the people. particularly if we stand up for them, and ensure that we show them respect for the sacrifices they have made for us, including helping them get back on their feet when they get back to the private sector. Putting limitations on the type of guns citizens are allowed to purchase is not going to put us in danger. I know I can't convince anyone of that, so I'm not going to wrench my head off trying to. But if you let gun control take effect without making such a fight out of it, we will soon see just how bad it is, and we can deal with it then. At least let compassion have a go at it. It's not a plot, with a secret military poised and waiting for the moment that you aren't allowed to buy an additional AR-15, and then they're going to jump out and enslave us all. I've never even heard a single thing about anyone going out and taking any guns away from anyone. The controls I believe in are simply about the weapons that are made available for sale without limits. Just think how gratifying it will be when you get your "I told you so" moment and everyone has to concede that you were right and the laws need to change back. Of course your immediate response to that is, "but it's too late by then." No, it's never too late. Liberals don't want to change the entire nature of our country and its government. You might be thinking of anarchists. We love our country and we only want it to be better. I know you want it to be better also, but this is one way in which we are not better off, and there is no evidence you can provide to support your belief that mass shootings would be worse if we have effective gun controls in place. There is one way you can prove it: let gun control exist. That is the one way you can prove that it is a bad idea. If it's proven that it's not a bad idea, and that we can exist successfully under such circumstances, be big enough to admit when you're wrong. Accept the fact that, though your intentions may have been good, wanting to protect the freedom of our national citizens, that was not the key. I think too often people get hung up on specifics. They get hung up on method rather than result. People say that their "freedom" is being taken away, when all they mean is their freedom to own however many, however deadly firearms they want. It's a bad idea. The 2nd Amendment mentions "a well-regulated militia" being necessary to protect the freedoms of our people. That is "well-regulated," which is different than just anybody who wants to arm their own personal militia. That is not regulated, and there is no training or sense of duty beyond personal preference required. This is not what the Amendment was meant for. And I cannot overstate the fact that this Amendment is NOT being infringed upon by implementing some gun control. The freedom to own obscene killing machines is a small price to pay for the lives it will save by not allowing anyone else to own them either. As for the people who say that "then only criminals will have guns" see my blog "I Have a Gun."
Comments
Post a Comment