trade offs
so I've been thinking lately about trade offs: how there's not a perfect system, because humans aren't perfect and can't create a system that's all "upside" and no cost. There are only "better" or "worse" systems or regimes of rules or policies.
Our rights are a prime example of this. Take a look at the Bill of Rights. It guarantees us many wonderful and desireable freedoms and powers as individuals. But it also comes with costs.
The right to free expression or religion or association leads to things like the KKK, the ACLU, Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy, Ann Coulter, radical Muslim mosques, and all other manner of evil. But we tolerate it, not only because we recognize that such noxious behavior is guaranteed by the highest law of the land, but because we instinctively know that limiting such freedoms is potentially an infinitely worse evil than the other assorted costs associated with those rights.
The right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures occasionally lets an undisputably guilty man go free to commit more crimes. But we tolerate such costs because the benefit to the rest of us is peace of mind, lack of anxiety about unfounded or groundless searches or arrests, and in general a knowledge that we are better off with the evil of men dispersed throughout the population than concentrated in the halls of power.
The right against self-incrimination has similar costs: men we know are guilty and deserving of punishment cannot be compelled to admit such and thus frustrates the pursuit of justice for those crimes. But we know that a GREATER injustice would be done if we allowed coerced or tortured confessions or punished a defendant for not testifying. The cost is more than outweighed by the benefit in our conception of what is acceptable and just.
Which brings me to gun control. Gun control advocates, for their part, ignore the fact that the balance between freedom and safety has already been struck as it has in the rest of the Constitution with the rest of our guaranteed rights. They can talk all they like of the costs of gun ownership, but they conveniently ignore that the Constitution and its Framers obviously thought such evils to be outweighed by the inherent benefits of private firearms ownership. They act as if guns have no positive aspects and as if the framers didn't contemplate such things when writing the Constitution, when they were keenly aware of human nature, its limitations, and the likely costs associated with the other rights contained in the Bill of Rights and limitations on government power throughout the Constitution.
Gun rights "activists" for our part frequently gloss over the downside associated with this right: some people will not use it responsibly and indeed do harm with it, sometimes great harm. We often accuse the other side (rightly so) of ignoring the plusses and positive aspects of gun possession (crime prevention, saved lives, keeping the gubmint in check, etc.) but we might be taken more seriously if we admitted more honestly and forthrightly that it's not all pancakes roses, this right. A more determined comparison of the right to arms with the other Constitutional rights and THEIR costs and benefits might go a long way to making a more reasoned and civil debate on this issue.
Sermon over.
Our rights are a prime example of this. Take a look at the Bill of Rights. It guarantees us many wonderful and desireable freedoms and powers as individuals. But it also comes with costs.
The right to free expression or religion or association leads to things like the KKK, the ACLU, Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy, Ann Coulter, radical Muslim mosques, and all other manner of evil. But we tolerate it, not only because we recognize that such noxious behavior is guaranteed by the highest law of the land, but because we instinctively know that limiting such freedoms is potentially an infinitely worse evil than the other assorted costs associated with those rights.
The right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures occasionally lets an undisputably guilty man go free to commit more crimes. But we tolerate such costs because the benefit to the rest of us is peace of mind, lack of anxiety about unfounded or groundless searches or arrests, and in general a knowledge that we are better off with the evil of men dispersed throughout the population than concentrated in the halls of power.
The right against self-incrimination has similar costs: men we know are guilty and deserving of punishment cannot be compelled to admit such and thus frustrates the pursuit of justice for those crimes. But we know that a GREATER injustice would be done if we allowed coerced or tortured confessions or punished a defendant for not testifying. The cost is more than outweighed by the benefit in our conception of what is acceptable and just.
Which brings me to gun control. Gun control advocates, for their part, ignore the fact that the balance between freedom and safety has already been struck as it has in the rest of the Constitution with the rest of our guaranteed rights. They can talk all they like of the costs of gun ownership, but they conveniently ignore that the Constitution and its Framers obviously thought such evils to be outweighed by the inherent benefits of private firearms ownership. They act as if guns have no positive aspects and as if the framers didn't contemplate such things when writing the Constitution, when they were keenly aware of human nature, its limitations, and the likely costs associated with the other rights contained in the Bill of Rights and limitations on government power throughout the Constitution.
Gun rights "activists" for our part frequently gloss over the downside associated with this right: some people will not use it responsibly and indeed do harm with it, sometimes great harm. We often accuse the other side (rightly so) of ignoring the plusses and positive aspects of gun possession (crime prevention, saved lives, keeping the gubmint in check, etc.) but we might be taken more seriously if we admitted more honestly and forthrightly that it's not all pancakes roses, this right. A more determined comparison of the right to arms with the other Constitutional rights and THEIR costs and benefits might go a long way to making a more reasoned and civil debate on this issue.
Sermon over.
0
-
Nice sermon. Something to think about. 0 -
Yes, excellent prose. Give us some honest thought. 0 -
I'm sorry, please tell me again, WHY DO I HAVE TO JUSTIFY MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by wanted man
I'm sorry, please tell me again, WHY DO I HAVE TO JUSTIFY MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS?
It's not a matter of justification. It's a matter of analogizing the costs and benefits with OTHER rights to the costs and benefits of the right to bear arms. I think too often only the second amendment is portrayed as having any downside, while the other guaranteed rights are seen as kind of a panacea, with only benefits and upsides, when in fact that's not the case. To make the conversation more HONEST, we need to point out that any conceivable course of action or system of govt. or balance between the individual and the collective comes with trade-offs, and the second is no exception, nor is the first, the fourth, the fifth, the sixth, the seventh, or any other right.0 -
Excellent logical discussion of "the" issue that concerns most of us. Few of "us" will put ourselves in "their" shoes to look at this issue. I agree completely with your point that "we might be taken more seriously if we admitted more honestly and forthrightly that it's not all pancakes roses, this right." We need to be taken seriously and to create a positive impact on the thought processes and opinions of others -- those other than "us." We spend a lot of time talking to each other about this issue, but that time is mostly wasted. We, in general, already agree. It is more comfortable and more enjoyable talking with someone with whom you agree. But, IMHO, it is not terribly productive. 0 -
You show good insight into the issues.
For me, I boil it down to one simple, manageable principal. The downside of certain of our rights, is simply "the cost of living in a free society", period.
There is no utopia where everyone lives happy and peaceful. There is evil, exploitation, weakness and those who commit deliberate wrong among us.
With freedom comes responsibility. Many will not exercise that responsibility. For those, constitutionally based swift and sure punishment must be the result. Public shame and a certain sense of intolerance must also be reinstated.
This is a free society's method of seeking responsibility among the people, not the passing of legions of laws and the onslaught of legions of lawyers, bureaucrats and government officials to oversee and regulate.
Only then, will we reach the balance the founders sought.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
6 comments