Sometimes an explanation really argues against what it is suppose to support. Such is true with the explanations supporting Capitalism and the use of the 2nd Amendment to oppose restrictions and regulations on the purchase and owning of guns. Why they are being mentioned together here is that these explanations are related.
How are these explanations related? It goes like this. The support for Capitalism and for those who use the 2nd Amendment as stated above rely on the presence of sin to justify their positions. Regarding the former, Capitalism makes room for the sin of greed while Socialism, according to some Capitalists I've discussed this with, can only work in an ideal world. Here, we should note that what is mostly meant by Socialism in this explanation is the idea of sharing. So what is being said here is that in an ideal world, it is realistic to expect people to share and thus Socialism could work. But in today's real world, such sharing flies in the face of reality so we need an economic system that is built on how people really are.
Regarding those who use the 2nd Amendment to oppose gun restrictions and regulations, they too believe that people are sinners. And so to counteract the harm of what sinners, especially evil ones, can do with weapons , which they will obtain regardless of what laws exist, we need good people to have unrestricted access to as many weapons as possible. Only then can we say we have an effective deterent against the bad guys/girls who have guns.
These explanations, both revolving around sin, seem to make sense until one starts to think. For example, if people are as greedy and sinful as those supporting Capitalism say they are, does it make sense to reduce or eliminate those laws that place some limits on the exercise of that greed? If people are as greedy and sinful as supporters of Capitalism say they are, don't we need restrictions on how people can both acquire wealth and use it? That to let greed go wild, which is what today's Neoliberal Capitalism is designed to let happen, invites not only the rewards that come with exercising greed, but the costs and detriments too. And those costs include people exploiting others and the environment in order to acquire more wealth as well as people using their wealth to acquire more political power.
A similar challenge can be made to those who use the 2nd Amendment to oppose all gun restrictions and regulations. Without restrictions and regulations, do we not make as easy for those who are evil to acquire and carry weapons as those who are good? And if there is such a clear demarcation between gun owners who are good and those who are evil, wouldn't some more gun laws possibly reduce the number of bad people carrying guns? In fact, without such a clear demarcation, don't we need gun regulations and restrictions to limit the number of bad guys with guns. Yes, no set of laws can stop all instances of bad people acquiring and carrying guns. However, that is not the issue. The issue is whether we can reduce the number of evil sinners who are packing heat.
Unfortunately, the bottom line behind supporting the most unrestricted form of both Capitalism and the ownership of guns is the dollar. That is because there is an inverse relationship between the making and keeping of wealth and the number of regulations and restrictions that are made a part of our economic system. Here we should note that this inverse relationship really applies only to certain elites in the private sector. The same inverse relationship exists between the number of restrictions and regulations placed on the owning of a gun and the profits made by gun manufacturers. So in other words, those conseratives who argue for fewer regulations and laws for the owning of guns are really blessing only a few, the manufacturers of guns, while putting more and more people at risk. Thus, Conservatives who oppose more restrictions and regulations on both our Capitalistic economic system and the owning of guns are doing someone else's bidding. And they do so convinced that they are either acting on principle or that they are acting in their own best interest.
So while those who are against regulations and restricitions on our economic system as well as the owning of guns claim to be guided by principle, it seems that the only principle that exists is that of many being misused by a few for the benefit of the few.
No comments:
Post a Comment