Armchair Philosophy, June 1st, 2020
Topic: The opt-out nature of rights
I recently spoke with a family member about the right to bare arms. As a part of the debate, she mentioned that a relative of mine did not trust himself with a weapon, as he is prone to highly volatile emotional cycles, potentially leading to a suicidal risk. This served as a bit of an "ah-ha!" moment for me. Debating rights in the terms of government empowerment is not a proper approach in an american context, and it is the duty of one debating such topics to ensure that the other person does not have the ability to implicate such arguments in the debate.
As described in the founding papers of the US government, our rights are not given to us by the government, but are inherent to us by our humanity. The government's duty, therefore, is to protect and enable those rights^. This form of thought leaves only two causes for the dissolution of rights:
1) A person violates the rights of another and has their rights stripped of them in the protection of the rights of others.
2) A person may willingly choose to abandon their own rights, due to some personal need or creed.
When explicitly framed in this way, rights become opt-out, not opt-in. However, this can be seen as difficult to convey in terms of baring arms, so I think this is an interesting topic to discuss. I believe the right to bare arms is a philosophical topic that deserves its own deeper discussion, so I will be brief here and save more detailed philosophical discussion of it for another post. For now, let's consider that baring arms simply represents a person's or group of persons' ability to stand up against a tyranny and defend their rights themselves with force, if necessary. Since it is the government's duty to protect and enable rights, I believe that an argument can be made that all citizens should receive some form of basic arms training and should qualify to receive a basic, modern armament upon completion of said training.
Now, writing this, I believe many libertarians will have a problem with the argument I just made for governments providing additive services and purchasing weapons for some citizens at the citizens expense. I believe that many others may have problems with the provision itself, and not the expenditure associated with it. However, I ask that you all go along with this idea to allow me to help visualize my concept of opt-out rights here. Unlike civil services, such as joining the military or other agencies provided by the government, this system would be opt-out. This is a service to enable citizens to practice their rights with ease and efficiency.
By making the service opt-out, it provides a natural source of civic education for all citizens, and provides an understanding to a right that many people misunderstand in modern times. A right that's enforcement is becoming increasingly rare around the world. I believe that this global pressure makes the education behind the US's enforcement of this right all the more important. However, all citizens have a choice, and I believe that making this program opt-out will promote greater involvement than opt-in, and will reduce any stigma that may surrounding gun use, purpose, and ownership. Providing these well educated and trained citizens with a weapon upon completion of their program will also help to create a sense of unification for all graduates, and may become a right of passage, much like earning a driver's license.
So that is a social justification for the program, now let's consider why people will opt-out of the service or graduation gun. Firstly, some people come from families that may not like guns, or they may be foreigners and not qualify for American protections. In these cases, they may opt-out, or require the earning of citizenship before they are even offered the opportunity. Additionally, people may not trust themselves to bare arms. This is a valid reason to opt out of weapon ownership, and will still enable the citizens to gain the education, if they so choose. A choice without a direct associated cost will benefit all citizens in understanding and utilizing their rights. This will also prevent the government from having to determine who has access to select rights. What privacy must all citizens sacrifice in order to determine which individuals are worthy of their rights being protected? This form of opt-out education provides a solution that mitigates the abandonment of privacy and prevents the government from being the sole arbiter of who deserves to keep their rights. I believe that this example policy is just one of many that can act as a nice middle ground to provide these desired effects.
That all said, this is just a concept I've been thinking of lately and would love to discuss with anyone and everyone as we move forward with the evolution of Commutation Construct. Let me know what you think of the concept, and the idea I have for implementing a policy designed around this idea below. I know I somewhat went on a tangent here, but I hope we can have some good conversations.
^This will be a future Armchair Philosophy Topic
Just thought I'd share this comment I was trying to comment on a Lotus Eaters video. Btw, ya'll should follow the Podcast of the Lotus Eaters if you aren't already. Great analysis and discussion
It's been a while since I've made a video, and this time with a locals exclusive. A cherry on top that I managed to fit within the size requirements. I like making shorter form content like this, considering my tendencies to ramble. Having content exclusive for my followers here is something I'll be working on doing more and more. I'll be creating more value here for my subscribers as well, with some subscriber exclusive content in the future. No timeline promises, cause I think we know how I get when I make a ton of promises (go hardcore for a week and then fall flat on my face unable to keep up with the sprint, lol).
Anyhow, let me know your thoughts and questions below. Have a great day everyone!
A direct upload! It turns out I recorded a video just short enough to meet the minimum upload offerings that locals offers to small communities like mine. That means you guys get this exclusively on locals!
I didn't sleep much last night, so I decided this was the perfect time to mull over my confused thoughts on how businesses are viewed from a legal perspective. Businesses are somewhat legal enigmas to me. Corporations are kinda treated as persons so that they can be double taxed, but have other protections, other types of businesses aren't treated the same way. They're able to consolidate power like governments, yet aren't subject to any form of limitations in regards to violating natural rights the same way the government is, despite being treated somewhat like persons they can still buy each other. It's just very odd to me from a principled, legal, and philosophical position.
Anyhow, my ramblings here are just that, ramblings. Still, I am curious what you all think of this topic. ...
The 2020 election is over, and the battle has just begun. What do I expect to come from the end of the election? Will the legal suits turn over anything for this election, or will they mean something for later down the line? I reflect on these questions and more in this discussion, and I also reflect on some final thoughts relevant to the Rise and Fall of Empire Series, that, thus far, being episodes 8 through 10 of the Construct Cast. Let me know your thoughts, and if you have any reflections of your own from this year's political cycle or other developments that you can't seem to get off your mind in the comments below.
In this episode of the Construct Cast, I discuss my analysis of Sir John Glubb's The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival, with an emphasis on my own consideration for what it would take to help an empire survive, or reboot. If immortality for an Empire is impossible, is rebirth impossible in the same way? Let me know your thoughts in the comments below.
Editor's Note: Returning to the podcast versions of the Construct Cast, I want to catch our content up to the videos we have had released over the past month. I apologize for this getting away from me for a bit. With the rise in content production, I had allowed this to get away from me. We will be returning to audio podcast uploads of the Construct Cast as per our original regular schedule, at 12PM EST on the day of the original upload, going forward.
In this second Crossover podcast, we are once again recording with Kevin @Eng_Politics. His channel is a bastion of political thought and analysis from the perspective of a conservative engineer. Interested in diving deeper into my concept of Progressive Traditionalism and combating the concept with his own beliefs of what it means to be Conservative, we decided to put our definitions and beliefs to task in this crossover episode!
Be sure to check out Kevin's locals community here:
https://engineeringpolitics.locals.com/
And if you're more interested in the video version, here is a direct link:
https://engineeringpolitics.locals.com/post/235260/the-engineering-politics-podcast-30-conservatism-vs-progressive-traditionalism
So I just confirmed that, after a year off of the Keto diet, my Ulcerative Colitis (a type of IBS) is still not only in remission, but seemingly cured as if it never was there, including no more polyp growth.
This self-experiment has shown me that a prolonged period on Keto, about 2 years for me, was enough to create the long lasting effects to repair and cure my gastrointestinal system to complete recovery from what was supposed to be a lifelong, incurable illness. I still have a minor level proctitus at the exit, to put it in the least gross way I can think, but with the rest actually fully cured to where my new GI doctor asked if I was misdiagnosed originally is a major accomplishment.
For those seeking a source on how to get here like I did, I recommend following Thomas Delaur's YouTube channel for general inflammation control/healthy keto/ workout advice, only eat meat that is 100% Grass fed and pasture raised (including eggs), and drink a glass of Kefir at least once a week. Good ...
Controversial capitalist take, but I personally don't think stock ownership should give any power to the stockholders over business decisions. Buyouts and ownership should be separate from stock investment. How? There are various options to discuss. Why? Theoretically an investment firm could invest ownership stakes into every major investment firm over time and concentrate all of their investments to own controlling stakes across entire industries or even all publicly traded companies.
Actually, this isn't so theoretical if you look at BlackRock's partnerships with Vanguard and State Street. The three companies operate in virtual lockstep and theoretically wouldn't even need 51% collective ownership in the companies they invest in because any company with an array of other investors should have some theoretical minimum that they can guarantee will follow the leadership of these big 3 in most cases. I've seen estimates that they only need a collective 35% share to all but guarantee any ...
