In politics, there is something called a “one-issue voter.” This is someone who decides among political candidates based on their position on one particular issue. Sometimes this issue is taxes; some people will always just vote for lower taxes. Other times, this issue is abortion; some people will always choose the pro-life candidate. I don’t really vote, but I think that one could call me a “one-issue person.” And that one issue, for me, is children. I do oppose higher taxes. but that’s because it impoverishes the world of tomorrow, which my children will inhabit. I do oppose war, but that’s because wars kill children. And the activities to which I have devoted my life are ones which enrich the lives of children and students. I teach Sunday School, not because I believe in any of my church’s teachings, but because I want to work with the kids and make sure they enjoy their time in the building. I taught economics on the collegiate level not only because I was passionate about economics, but because I wanted to help kids understand the life-changing subject. I worked in the General Counsel’s office of the SUNY Research Foundation because I wanted to help enrich the educational experience of SUNY students. I coach gymnastics for young children weekly because I enjoy seeing the little kids have fun and grow. And, of course, I dedicate an enormous part of my time to the EMC2 program, where many of the students would be startled to realize the extent of my affection for and commitment to them. There is little I wouldn’t do for them. I could keep going here, and talk about the little girl I taught how to walk, or the daycare I helped manage, or my tutoring, or my babysitting, or my insistence on donating only to charities that support children, but hopefully it is clear how much of my life has been dedicated to doing good things for kids.
So, as you can imagine, news of a child massacre is particularly devastating to me. It is difficult for me to put into words the overwhelming rage and grief that I felt in response to the shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School last week. I could spend several paragraphs here trying to describe it, but I think this unnecessary, given the fact that you, my dear reader, no doubt felt something similar. So, I’ll confine myself here to the academic task of discussing the event in terms of my theory of being human, perhaps speculate a bit about its cause, and then comment on the response I’ve seen from the nation.
First, I want to make the controversial assertion that the gunman’s actions were not “mindless” or “crazy” or “irrational.” If we define rationality loosely, as the application of means in ways that the acting individual believes will bring about the attainment of his chosen ends, then the shooter’s actions are every bit as rational as mine are when I’m baking cookies. Given his ends, one may conclude that his means were not appropriate. Or, one could conclude that his ends were repugnant and unjustifiable. But the process, the thinking process, is essentially the same in this murdering individual as in the victims who tried to escape him. Which means, I believe, that we can come to understand this individual’s thinking process. We might not agree with his reasoning, and we might find the task distasteful, but it is possible to see the purpose-driven causal chain that his mind constructed, and to question why it was made the way that it was. That is, we can ask and answer why he did what he did. This is not something that I believe many have done in response to this particular shooting.
Now, a slight digression that is relevant to my theory but not to this event. Man lives in a world of scarcity, and much of his mental and physical energy is dedicated to acquiring additional means, thus loosening the restraints scarcity imposes on his ability to attain his chosen ends. There are essentially two ways in which one can acquire these means, productively and parasitically. That is, in a society such as ours, one can cooperate with other people in the division of labor to transform resources into more and better goods capable of satisfying various wants, or he can take such goods from others who have peacefully produced them. This antisocial route to increased wealth can appear relatively attractive, so long as one can get away with the crime. Regardless, this choice is always present to the individual living in society. He can choose peaceful cooperation, or he can choose violent expropriation. As always, the individual will choose whichever route he believes to be most advantageous to himself. His actions will have consequences beyond himself, namely on the people he chooses to victimize or not, but also on everyone else as he contributes to the uncertainty of the future’s security. Widespread crime diverts resources into crime prevention and protective measures, and it increases the present-orientedness of people (goods should be consumed today, or else they might be stolen in the night). If the violence becomes too prevalent, society itself will disintegrate. However, for any one individual, the wider consequences of his actions are unlikely to have any major significance on society at large, and, no matter the consequences, the individual is likely to consider only the consequences for himself in his decision. That is, considerations of the implications of his actions on others will not likely enter his thoughts as he makes this choice. A key to a flourishing society, therefore, is a mechanism by which the costs of antisocial behavior are felt by the acting individual, either through a legal system that holds individuals accountable for the effects their actions have on others, or through a moral system that influences the choice an individual makes by making treating other people well an end in and of itself, or through an educational system that influences the choice of means an individual chooses in the pursuit of his ends and helps him see the consequences of his actions.
Mises believed that the task of economics was to demonstrate whether the means chosen by individuals and policy makers were appropriate for the attainment of the actors’ given ends. He believed that all of the mistakes made by government were results of ignorance and misunderstanding about the economic ramifications of the policies chosen. If the politicians could just understand that the minimum wage actually hurts poor workers, they wouldn’t raise it. Similarly, if individuals understood that the short-term gains in wealth from acts of violence would inevitably be outweighed by the costs of a loss of the peace, they would not choose to act criminally. Mises referred to the harmony of the “rightly understood” interests [long-term interests]. He was a firm advocate for peace among men, because he saw that it was through peace that the long-term interests of everyone, increased wealth and happiness, were achieved through peaceful cooperation in society. It was just a matter of making everyone see this reality. [Rothbard pointed out that this idea of the harmony of interests assumed that people were not interested in hurting other people. That is, if an individual saw violence as an end in and of itself, then his interests could not be harmonized with those of others, who sought peace. I’m not going to really consider here the situation of someone who sees violence as an end rather than a means. I believe these people are actually quite rare, and, moreover, I believe that the only effective response to their existence is their removal from society.]
Now, assuming that the gunman’s goal was not violence itself, it was also clearly not his goal to acquire more resources and become wealthier in the strict sense of the phrase. But he did have a purpose in doing what he did, an end that he was trying to attain. And he believed that this end could more properly be attained through violent means, rather than peaceful ones. As an individualist, I do not attribute the shooter’s action to anyone but himself. There is no blood on lawmakers’ hands, as many have alleged. But I certainly think that it could be argued that society had its own, distinct, failure. I’m not talking about government law enforcement’s utter failure to protect these children, although why anyone would think government should be responsible for public safety in 2018 continues to baffle me. [The aftermath of horrible incidents like this usually contain a call for more resources to be devoted to the failed government agency. This seems rather odd, rewarding the people who failed. In any context other than government, I think the absurdity would be apparent. The sensible response is to fire this failed agency, and hire a new one.] Instead, I’m talking about the failure of our society to sufficiently bind the killer in the social nexus such that he would not choose such a course of action as he did. Human nature tends toward society, and society tends towards a social nature and social action. That there are individuals who see such dramatic violence as a proper action is an indication, in my view, of a breakdown in societal bonds that should have bound those individuals. As we continue looking for ways to prevent events like this, we should remain cognizant of society’s role in producing the perpetrator of the tragedy. This attack is devastating not only because it resulted in 17 deaths, but because it demonstrates that we live in a society where such an attack can occur.
Because this journal is already going to be longer than it should be, I won’t delve too deeply into why I think society failed, what structural features of our current society might have generated these impulses in the shooter. Suffice to say that, looking around, I see division everywhere, with an intensity that is sickening. There is clear bias and antagonism in every single news story (except, to some degree, the business section...thank goodness that the market can still provide an oasis of sanity). Everyone is protesting something, minorities compete for the title of most oppressed, the government acts belligerently towards all foreign nations, Americans are generally distrustful of foreigners (the leftists of Russians, the right-wingers of Mexicans and Chinese), social media is full of arguments (or, rather, declarations and then exchanges of insults in the comment sections), and, with increased intensity in response to this shooting, but preceding it, loud calls for restricting the rights of others. Everything, and I mean everything, has become so politicized; it invades our entertainment, too, coloring our advertisements, movies, and even sports. Politics, contrary to what the children learn in their unsafe indoctrination camps, is not a mechanism for consensus, but a tool of warfare. A democracy is and must always be oppression by the majority. And as government expands, and more of our lives become subject to politics, it is ever more important to gain and retain majority status. Anyone who is not like you is the enemy, because they might vote a different way. Actions that seem obviously antisocial suddenly become acceptable if committed for the cause of ensuring that your views remain controlling. You can justify such actions by believing that society would be harmed to a much greater extent if other policies were to replace your own. In sum, as society moves away from the market, with its division of labor based on cooperation, to government-based “solutions,” based on opposition and enforced through coercion, we become less social, and certainly less peaceful. Actions like shooting children no longer seem beyond the realm of possibility; after all, this is war.
There is a more scientific (read: economic) explanation for the breakdown of society. I don’t want to get into that here. But I do want to stress that this problem stems from a breakdown in general social relations. Often, these aggressors are portrayed as having a history as loners. That is, they are isolated from the embrace of society. As society becomes less embracive, we might expect more loners and thus more aggressors.
Now, for solutions, and my second controversial statement in this journal. The part of “gun violence” that makes it evil is the “violence,” not the “gun.” Carrying a gun through a school without hurting anyone could not be considered an evil act (unless you’ve been more-than-usually brainwashed by the anti-gun media). On the other hand, stabbing more than a dozen students to death with a knife would undoubtedly be considered evil (perhaps more so than killing them with a gun). So, the part of this event that makes it horrible and cries out for action is not the use of a gun, but the violence itself. It’s the killing that’s the problem here. So I think the massive response to this tragedy that is focusing on gun control is rather confused. The goal should not be to reduce the prevalence of guns in the community, but to reduce the prevalence of violence in the community.
In response to pretty much everything, I usually stress the need to ask more questions. “Answers should not be given until questions have been asked.” After this event last week, everyone jumped immediately to answers: the left to gun control as the solution, and the right to treating mental illness and the need for increased law enforcement. And I think that if they had all just engaged in some critical thinking, they might have seen the truth set out in the last paragraph. An unusual brain is no more evil than an inanimate gun. It is the violence that is the issue. It is the violence that must be prevented. Additionally, in response to events like this, I usually recommend waiting for emotion to die down, so that solutions can be crafted by reason, not emotion. There has been a lot of admiration expressed for the nature of the response to this particular shooting, which has been more organized and much louder than in the past. A lot of people think that this is a good thing, since it is more likely to lead to change. But who stops to ask the questions “What change? Who’s change? Is this change appropriate or not? What even happened here, and why?” I strongly believe that the people making the most noise right now, "making their voices heard," have not engaged in a cold, rational deliberation on this issue, have not engaged in the questioning, arguing, and critical thinking necessary for clear thought, and have not embraced the intellectual humility necessary to entertain other points of view. Indeed, many of them seem to base their assertions on their experiential authority, like the post-modernists, as if being in the same building as a shooter makes their arguments for more gun control any more legitimate or more objectively true. As a result, I tend to dismiss them. They’re reacting, not thinking. That’s not to say that there are not some engaging in these stricter, more rational discussions and coming to similar conclusions as the children calling for action. But these other people are rare, and their more rigorous arguments are often drowned out by the noise created by everyone else. This noise, and the calls for more of it, may very well be leading us in the wrong direction. Indeed, I rather suspect that this is the case, though perhaps not in the way you might think.
As I discussed above, I think that a peaceful society acts as something of a positive feedback loop, and that instances of tremendous violence are evidence of a breakdown in the system somewhere. The solution, therefore, would seem to be something (or many things) that would tend to cultivate a more peaceful society. I think that the best way to respond to any situation is to become better, to learn and grow. The problem here is hate and division and alienation and violence. We should respond with love and unity and community and peace. This is kind of the opposite of how most have been reacting. The left wants to use the coercive power of the government to eliminate the rights of 40% of the country, and to take that 40%’s private property away. The right wants to use the coercive power of the government to fill our schools with more guns, and perhaps lock up/drug people whose brains work a little bit differently. Neither of these solutions seem to lead to a more peaceful, cooperative society. But, more fundamentally, I think that both views are misguided in that they are looking for a political solution. Because, as I discussed above, politics is divisive. Take a quick look at Twitter if you don’t believe me. There is so much anger and hate and vitriol involved in every political debate. Pursuing more politics in response to this shooting will, in fact, deepen and intensify the divisions and conflicts in our society. And that’s the opposite of what we should be doing. Moreover, choosing a government solution seems rather unreasonable, as the government can only adopt one solution for all of us. We don’t know whether this chosen solution will work, or whether it would be the most effective solution, and the odds of it being so seem rather unlikely, given sheer probability, not to mention the corrupting and warping influence of the compromising political process. It would seem that, if we were really serious about saving lives, we would allow the market to try every possible solution, and every combination of preventative measures, to determine which is most effective. I am not entirely sure what the best solution to this problem of school shootings is, but I am fairly certain that forcing one possible solution on everyone [another act of violence on a society already fraught with it] is not a reasonable course of action for finding it. So, a government solution seems to come with higher costs than benefits. Instead of screaming for a bunch of politicians to fix this problem for us with whatever one solution they manage to come up with, let us all do our own part to prevent violence in our schools. Let us all try our own solutions; let us all try to cultivate a society of peace; let us all try to love each other just a little bit more.
No comments:
Post a Comment