Alpha Assumed is a relatively new blogger in the manosphere who mostly talks about politics and the correct way to argue to win leftists over instead of enduring the usual tedium.
He’s been on fire for the last four posts, so I wanted to drop him some extra linkage so more people get exposed to his arguments:
Hence, the two fundamental arguments in favor of gun rights. They don’t contradict, and there’s no reason not to believe in both.
The Libertarian (I): I am an individual with inalienable rights, and as such I have the right to protect myself and my family. I don’t care if it reduces crime or not (although it does), I have the right to a gun as long as I don’t use it improperly, for I am what I am and the State has not right to mess with that. The US Government may not be quite as bad as Pol Pot’s, but history shows that democracies have degenerated into tyrannies before, if that crap happens here, an AR-15 or a Glock is the best shot I’ve got. Governments attract people who want power, and I don’t trust anyone who wants power over me. Justice Thomas may treat me okay, but I’m not so sure about Justice Kagan. And even if she has no intention to harm me, she has no right send any SWAT teams to my house to deprive me of my property.
The Conservative (A): I support the police, but they can’t be everywhere. Criminals respond to incentives, and there’s no stronger incentive to not rob me than a .45 at my side. I don’t want a gun to shoot the police, I want a gun because I respect them. They’re willing to risk their lives for me, and if I can protect myself, they’re less likely to have to. Besides, outlaws by their very nature, don’t respect the law. If you ban firearms, the only people who won’t have them will be the people who don’t care about the law.
Imagine that I’ve been trying to get across the point that certain individual rights trump those of the majority will, and Melissa just won’t buy it. I then propose that we pretend our little group is a closed society, and that we’re a democracy. Majority rules, period. Melissa goes along: after all, itsdemocracy.
I might then make a couple of innocuous proposals for us to vote on, like maybe what restaurant we go to or on what color cups we should use. Make it fun.
Once we’ve all accepted how incredibly fair democracy is, I “propose that Melissa remove her shirt, now.” I call for a vote, and the majority votes that she does it. Melissa protests.
Martel: But we’re a democracy. Majority rules.
Melissa: Yeah, but…
Martel: Democracy! Majority rules.
Melissa then hems and haws, so I help her out.
Martel: So are you saying that there are some things that a democracy should not be allowed to do?
I have thus illustrated that there are circumstances under which individual rights (in this case Melissa’s right to keep her shirt on) trump the will of the majority, that sometimes the interests of the majority violate the sovereignty of the minority. Democracy is NOT infallible.
The left assumes that the solution to poverty is not only political, it’s primarily political, and it’s an activist government that needs to rectify it. Rare is the leftist who is aware of how the stifling regulation in our inner cities strangles entrepreneurship in its cradle (read Sudhir Venkatesh’s Off the Books for an in-depth description of how the urban poor are forced to survive in the underground economy). Almost never will you find a liberal who understands that the primary reason that some countries have a stronger middle class than others is that some legal systems respect property rights and others don’t (Hernando de Soto’s Mystery of Capital is a fantastic description of this phenomenon, just try to refrain from assassinating the entire Hatian government after you read it). The resistance of teachers’ unions to charter schools and other forms of school choice forces poor kids to go to crappy schools. Leftists don’t understand how competition could improve education for these kids for even less money. Instead, the solution is for us to spend even more money and to hold the teachers even less accountable. If government spending solved the problem of poverty, Detroit would be among our nation’s wealthiest cities (it’s not).
I’ve no reason to doubt Daisy’s assertion that she got government assistance growing up and became a hard-working adult who pays her taxes like the rest of us. Daisy’s not the only one, either. I know such folks, and know of many others.
I am therefore unable to “repeat the nonsense that having health care (or anything else) paid for, suddenly turns you into some obscene, lazy freeloader” because I haven’t said it, and Yohami didn’t either.
Nevertheless, she reveals an important fallacy common to the left. When it’s pointed out, it can make you more persuasive when dealing with them.
There is human nature, what people generally do (A). There is also a how people should be, and sometimes are (G).
Apparently, Daisy’s family did something right. Although they received government assistance, they obviously didn’t rely on it to the point that it sapped their work ethic. Furthermore, they raised their daughter in such a way that she would not be inclined to grow up as a mooch. This implies that any sense of entitlement they may have had was outweighed by their self-respect. This is good. It’s not a myth. Sometimes people actually act this way. G is sometimes real.
However, when people are able to get something for free, they’re liable to take it. Not only will they take it, a lot of times they’ll count on it. As they count on it, they become dependent on it.
Take a look.