Actually, I think my position on gun control is pretty nuanced.

Actually, I think my position on gun control is pretty nuanced.  On the one hand, I live in a densely populated part of a big city.  There is no direction you can aim a gun without threatening life and property and prudent people try not to put themselves in a position where they have to make the choice whether to fire a gun or not.  When I hear gunfire in the night I do not assume that it is the sound of a property owner protecting his home.  The odds are greatly in favor of it being criminal activity because criminals often have a reckless disregard for life and property.  On the other hand, my work frequently takes me out through ranchland into the mountains.  Out there, at the end of twenty miles of bad road, I expect the neighbors to have firearms and to be proficient in their use.  If I hear the sound of gunfire out there on the ranches I do not assume criminal activity because, out there, the legitimate uses of firearms greatly outnumber the possible criminal uses. 

Some of the arguments, pro and con, in the gun control debate are ludicrous.   Even the strictest gun control laws will not take guns away from criminals.  They will, typically, only disarm potential victims. Nor do I believe that gun control would equate to a reduction in violence.   Even if it were possible to disarm a majority of the criminals, the U.S. would remain a remarkably violent country by the standards of the developed world. Trying to reduce the murder rate in this country is a complex problem and will have to involve more than taking away a few of the common murder weapons.  On the other side of the argument I have to take issue with those who have fantasies of being able to fight off government troops armed with deer rifles.   A few dozen of these survivalist types would be no match for a couple Blackhawk helicopters.  If you want to arm yourself against a government takeover, arm yourself with knowledge.  Try to build community instead of disparaging people who disagree with you.   Those are things they can’t take away. 

unions?

Maybe I’m just too immature to accept the fact that other people, better than myself, have the right to push me around but I prefer to work with (or for) small businesses where, if I have a complaint, I can go directly to the owner.  The worker/contractor who has to deal with a big business rarely has access to those who make company policy.   Workers can form a union that is powerful enough to gain access to those decision makers but the union, itself, becomes another lumbering giant in pursuit of its own interests, often distinct from those of the workers who comprise it.   The labor union is an imperfect solution to a real problem and that problem is that as companies get larger, they become less responsive to the needs of the market and the society in which they are embedded.   Small businesses are dynamic, responsive to the market and a generally positive influence in their communities.   As businesses get larger, they become a force unto themselves, distorting the dynamics of a free market and creating a situation in which unions are actually better than the alternative.

Voting Fraud

Voting fraud is nothing new but there has been a lot of talk lately about the possibility that some kinds of electronic voting machines may make it easier to tweak the results without leaving evidence.  Whether it’s true or not, it’s been great material for humorists…

http://xkcd.com/463/

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/822256/

The question of whether corporations should be allowed to influence elections has to be considered in context.    Corporations, unions and non-profits are all in competition for government money and access to that money involves a lot of political maneuvering, lobbying and political advertising.   If one of those groups is allowed to use a tactic that is forbidden to the others it’s understandable that the others will cry “foul!”  For that matter, if one of them has access to so much money that the others are, effectively, silenced you might expect to hear a fair amount of grumbling.  After all, why should the most resources be directed toward those that already have the most?

Which would be more fair, to allow any group to participate to any degree or to limit political participation to voters only?  That’s a trick question, of course.   Our current system does not require going from one extreme to the other but, rather, to hunt around for some sort of balance that is acceptable to most (and I assume we’ll continue that search).  If a union is required to have the consent of all members before making a contribution should a corporation be required to get the consent of all stockholders?  (And does that allow you some choice in how the fund that controls your 401K votes?)  These are tricky questions and there aren’t any easy answers.

Three Strikes

A surprising number of acts can be considered crimes at the discretion of the arresting officer and judging the seriousness of those crimes is often left to the discretion of the District Attorney.   Some decades back, a man addressing a crowd of protestors in San Francisco handed out candies and, when the candies were gone, started to hand out day-old bagels.  That’s when the police moved in.  The bagels were not individually wrapped and the man was not wearing gloves.  That’s a violation of the food service laws, normally a misdemeanor, but one that can be considered a felony at the discretion of the D.A.   He had, apparently, committed similar felonies in the past because he was initially charged under the Three Strikes law and faced 25 years to life.  So, OK, break your sandwich in half, give some to that homeless guy, he’s not an undercover cop waiting for you to do something illegal… is he?