Prayer Isn’t Welcomed in the Midst of a Tragedy?

I ranted a couple years ago on We Are Libertarians about the trend to switch prayers to “healing vibes” on social media. Somehow, prayer became a shameful act to display to social media friends despite Barna research saying 94% of Americans have prayed once in the last 3 days. Pew says 55% of Americans pray daily. In the wake of the Texas shooting, prayer has been mocked by progressives and Hollywood. Using their favorite weapons, shame and bullying, they are trying to silence public displays of the freedom of speech and religion.

Prayer to whomever or whatever is an act of contrition and reflection in an effort to become a better person. Some faiths say that signal of obedience makes God move in places he might not have before. Moments of tragedy are the best times to do a self-inventory and ask where we can change ourselves to be more loving and giving.

The vague “do something” where no policy is prescribed actually does nothing. It is vanity to show off for friends. Mock prayer, Keith Olbermann, but it is more effective than anything you’ve done in your “career.”

Prisons Without The State

Even in a stateless world based on the libertarian ideals of self-ownership and private property, prisons may be a necessary evil.  I’ve written many posts based on how criminal justice could look in such a world, all of which I’ll link to at the bottom of this post, but I’ve never dealt directly with prisons.  I put a few ideas in some of those posts, but this post will serve as a stand alone post dealing solely with how prisons could look without a government monopoly and funding through taxation.

What Prisons Won’t Look Like

In a stateless society, prisons would look nothing like they do today.  Even though there are “private” prisons in America, they aren’t private in any sense of the word.  They are completely funded by government and are completely tied to the government court system.  They have all the privileges of a government enforced monopoly.

Without a government to fund prisons, public or “private,” one would imagine that they couldn’t exist at all.  It would be impossible for the current business model of warehousing criminals in giant concrete buildings, for years on end, to exist without forcing people to pay for it.

With that in mind, we need to imagine a model where the prison would fund itself.  Most prisons would most likely be funded voluntarily by the prisoners themselves.

Voluntary Prisons

Before I go into the concept of voluntary prisons, first I have to answer the question of “Who the hell would voluntarily go to prison?!”

Let’s say we have a person that is found guilty of a violent crime and is found to owe $20,000 for restitution, court costs, and costs of capture.  Presumably, this criminal is broke so he won’t be able to pay it back.  The criminal, because of his own violent actions, would have no right to object to the victim from using force to acquire this restitution.  Basically, the criminal is at the mercy of his victim.  Even though the victim would be obligated to use the least amount of force necessary to acquire this restitution, it would probably be in the benefit of the criminal to negotiate favorable terms in paying back what is owed.

Possibly, if the debt is small enough and the criminal seems trustworthy enough (maybe he’s a teenager who is on track to have a productive life, but just made one mistake hanging with the wrong crowd), both sides might just agree to let the criminal go free so long as he agrees to pay a monthly payment until his debt is gone.

More than likely, this won’t be the case.  We can assume that the criminal would want to pay back his debt as soon as possible in order to be free.  We can also assume the criminal wants to be as safe and comfortable as possible while paying off this debt.  So why wouldn’t both sides work together in order to find a solution?  Based on whatever skills the criminal may have, there could be many competing prisons that would utilize his labor to pay for keeping him locked up, while at the same time paying off the debt the criminal owes.

Some prisons may even offer programs to teach new skills to prisoners.  This would attract more prisoners, allow the prison to make more profit, and allow the prisoner to pay off his debt sooner.  This has the added benefit of giving the prisoner a new skill he could utilize to make a living once he’s free.

Prisons would also compete based on safety and comfort.  The victim may not care much about this, but if the goal is to get restitution back as soon as possible, and get it back in a way that would involve little or no extra force (which could become costly and dangerous for all sides involved,) there would have to be some incentives for the criminal to want to voluntarily agree to go to a prison.

Will it always go down this easy?  Of course not!  Some criminals may agree to go to voluntary prisons, only to refuse to work or even purposely sabotage their work.  Others simply won’t agree to work to pay back their victims.  Violent criminals are often irrational or just downright evil.  They have no concern for their own safety, their own life, or the lives of the people they hurt.  How will they be dealt with?

Involuntary Prisons

When considering how a prison full of people who have no desire to work off their debt will be funded, the first thought that comes to mind is some kind of forced labor system.  However, I’m not convinced that such a system could be profitable.

We’re talking about the most violent and deranged people on the planet here.  If they are forced to work in some kind of factory, they would have access to any number of objects that could be used as deadly weapons against their captors.  The costs of constantly monitoring, housing, and generally keeping such a business going would far out way the benefits of free labor.

The same goes for any kind of agricultural based forced labor camp.  The costs of keeping these prisoners working and overseeing their every move would be astronomical compared to simply hiring some migrant workers who show up voluntarily, accept meager wages, and go on about their way.

Plus, the idea of forcing someone into slavery, no matter how evil his deeds, is something that people would widely view as wrong.  This could lead to people refusing to do business with forced labor prisons, thus making them even more unprofitable.

With forced labor out of the question, what options do we have left?

One way is charity.  There’s not many people alive who wouldn’t want the most deranged and evil people removed from their world.  With this overwhelming demand to see violent people locked away, we can imagine the market satisfying this demand with prisons funded through charity.  The bulk of this charity would probably come from businesses and individuals who benefit most from seeing violent people locked away somewhere.  Insurance companies and security companies immediately come to mind.

Another way for an involuntary prison to turn a profit without forced labor is by turning it into some kind of tourist attraction.  There is an almost endless fascination the general public has with evil people.  TV shows, movies, and documentaries are made every year showcasing crimes and the people who commit them.  Perhaps there could be a demand for some kind of tourist attraction called “Violent Criminal World.”

You could pay to see the worst of the worst up close and personal.

Another somewhat related idea is for an involuntary prison to have its own reality TV show.  They could produce and sell there own show based on the everyday happenings of the prison.  There could even be a market for people to pay for access to a 24/7 live stream of every camera in the prison.

A percentage of the profits from these ventures could then be dispersed out to the victims of the criminals locked up.

These are just a few ideas.  The beauty of a free market system is that absent of a government forced monopoly, there’s no limit to what entrepreneurs will come up with.  In order to meet the significant demand to keep violent criminals away from non-violent people, we can expect a plethora of options available to the victims of violent criminals.

Quick Overview of a Private Criminal Justice System

For an in depth overview of these topics, I’ll link to the individual posts below.  But I’ll try to give a quick summary of what would occur after a crime has taken place in a stateless society.

So you’re a victim of a violent crime.  A criminal broke into your house, stole valuables, and injured you in the process.  Perhaps they hit you several times and tied you up.  In a free market, we could get insurance that not only covers our property, but covers our body as well.  You can then file a claim with your insurance company for all damages resulting from this crime.

When the insurance company pays your claim, they’ve now bought the right to go after this criminal and recover the damages.  They are now incentivized to solve this crime and apprehend this criminal in order to recoup their losses.  Most likely, they would offer a bounty to anyone who can put enough evidence together in order to secure a conviction in a court that is widely viewed as reputable.

If and when they are able to apprehend the criminal and get enough evidence to secure a conviction, they could then negotiate with the criminal on the best way for him to pay back all the damages, court costs, and costs of capture.

If the criminal is willing, they could agree to a voluntary prison stay until the debt is paid.  If the prisoner is unwilling to negotiate or work, then they could go the involuntary prison route.  Perhaps the involuntary prison company could just pay the insurance company a one time, upfront fee for the right to have the prisoner in their custody.  Or more likely, they’d probably agree to pay a percentage of profits to have him in their prison until the debt is paid.

With competition for prisoners, the invisible hand of the market would steer the outcome toward maximum benefit of all parties, including the criminal.  This would insure that restitution would be paid back as quickly as possible and that prisoners wouldn’t be locked up for longer than they would have to be.  Only the truly heinous criminals would rack up enough damages to be locked away for life.  Other criminals, by working off their debt and possibly learning new skills in the process, would have an opportunity at true rehabilitation.

As always, we can never know exactly how things will shake out after the government monopoly is finally dissolved.  There will never be a perfect system.  Even in a stateless system there can be no guarantee that all criminals will be brought to justice.  There can be no guarantee that there will never be an innocent person locked up.  However, without a monopoly of powerful people in charge, any mistake or corrupt actor at any level of the criminal justice system will not have immunity from prosecution as the prosecutors, judges, politicians, and police officers enjoy today.  This alone will ensure much fairer and equitable results.  That along with unfettered competition will give us the most just and fair system mankind has ever seen.

Originally published on Mike’s website here.  Check out his blog levelheadedlibertarian.com for more!

For further reading on Criminal Justice without the State from Mike Tront:

7/20/2016 – A Private Criminal Justice System

7/29/2016 – Capital Punishment In a Libertarian Justice System

8/11/2016 – Crime Solving, Libertarian Style

1/27/2017 – But Without Government, Who Will Prosecute Criminals That Hurt The Poor?

2/03/2017 – Private Criminal Justice:  Who Will Protect The Homeless?

8/03/2017 – Libertarian Courts In a Stateless Society

Former progressive podcaster Jamie Kilstein of Citizen Radio was on Joe Rogan. He presents the prison that is living according to the rules of a progressive society. He also shows that a political commentator must always say what their audience needs to hear and not what they want to hear, or else they end up in a lonely and dangerous place. – Chris Spangle

243: The Tangled Web of Manafort, Papadopoulos, Podesta, Brazille, Clinton, JFK

Chris Spangle, Chris Gault, and Tad Western explain the Manafort and Papadopoulos charges, the Clinton Uranium One Scandal, the Donna Brazille article explaining how Clinton bought the nomination, and we touch on the JFK leaks.

The Libertarian Party Vice Chair Needs to Resign

The Libertarian Party Vice Chair, Arvin Vohra, Needs to Resign after his comments about rape.

242: The Confessions of Chris Spangle

Chris Spangle sits down to confess that he isn’t really proud of a lot of WAL, and explains some of the new changes. Originally a bonus episode, Spangle outlines that Trump has caused a mania in men, and he got caught up in it. WAL will be taking a different direction moving forward in some areas.

241: Niger and The Expansion of the War On Terror

Chris Spangle, Brett Bittner, and Brian Nichols discuss the expansion of the war on terror into Africa, how it happened, and what it means for the future of the American military. Spangle then gets keto curious.

240: Net Neutrality, Rand Paul’s New Privacy Bill, Flake & Corker

Chris Spangle and Harry Price cover the new moves on Net Neutrality, Rand Paul’s new privacy bill, and the Senate revolt against Trump.

239: Phyllis’s Story – Fighting Medicare For Her Life

In a continuation of The Cost: The Human Toll of Public Policy, Phyllis Klosinski explains her fight against Medicare to receive the lifesaving treatment she needs, and how the government prevents it at every turn. She also touches on our duty to fight for our rights. Add Phyllis on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/phyllis.klosinski

238: #MeToo and The Morality of Strip Clubs

Chris Spangle, Kristi Avery, Tanner Perdew, Maranda Barnett and Aeris Stewart discuss the #MeToo movement. We also discuss the morality and economics of strip clubs.

237: State of the State

Chris Spangle, Harry Price, and Chris Gault discuss some changes in WAL’s future.

From Chris Spangle:

I’m not sure if you have heard the latest episode. It was a difficult one to do. Greg has decided to leave WAL. I gave you my side of the story while reading Greg’s post as well because I want to be as transparent and honest as possible. I value honesty, openness, transparency, and vulnerability. They are at the center of this show. A libertarian society will not work without it. I will always keep those at the center of what we do to keep your trust.

It is a heartbreaking moment for me, and I know it will be disappointing for you as well. Please be respectful of Greg, Cat, and me. Let’s honor the many significant contributions they’ve made to this show. An audience can sometimes see their favorite characters as avatars. I want to remind you that we are humans with a lot of emotions around this.

Thank you to this community for the support in this rough moment. I’ve received much love and support from our 20 cohosts, listeners, and subscribers, and I am appreciative.

I view this is a moment to evolve the show and continue to grow it. Regardless of the cast, we will still present current events from a libertarian perspective in a fun way. We do it to persuade people to our point of view while making them sound smarter when talking to their friends.

I’d like you to get in on the discussion as well. The analysis of current events from a libertarian perspective does not begin and end with our show. Please join our Facebook group, discord chat, or use the hashtag #WALNews to share stories you’d like to discuss with fellow libertarians. We will use these to crowdsource the new headlines segment I will be adding to each show, and we will include some of your comments in on-air discussions.

If you feel like you don’t fit anywhere politically, I invite you to join us. You’re going to meet a lot of new friends that think the way you do.

I hope that you will continue to listen and financially support our work as we continue to grow as a new political force. If you have any questions, please feel free to email me at spangle@wearelibertarians.com or add me on Facebook and chat via messenger.

236: Libertarian Documentarian Travis Irvine on Running for Mayor

Libertarian filmmaker and comedian Travis Irvine discusses his documentary “American Mayor” on Amazon Prime. Irvine also explains how the GOP killed the Libertarian Party of Ohio, and what it’s like to work with Roger Stone. Spangle also explains why he hates the Facebook audience. Watch the documentary: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B074T571DT


235: The Truth About Facebook Selling Russian Nationals Advertising

Chris Spangle and Harry Price explain Facebook selling ads to Russians, and why it doesn’t really matter in a previous bonus episode. Harry also gives us a tech tip.

234: Lessons For Libertarians Found In Nazi Propaganda

What can libertarians learn from history’s most hated dictators? Simply put: the power of propaganda.

Hold on, you say. Isn’t propaganda a thing of the past? And isn’t it obvious when something or someone is trying to manipulate me? These are all good questions. Stay tuned, and we’ll give you some answers.

The fact is, even today, propaganda in some form is everywhere. It lurks in news, music, media, political speeches, and even history textbooks. More importantly, it still changes the way we think about the world and the decisions we make as a result. Is that scary? Well, it doesn’t have to be. It turns out the more you know about the history of propaganda, the more you’ll be able to recognize and resist it. Moreover, with the right tools, you can use elements of propaganda to better advocate for the ideas of liberty.

In this episode, guest hosts Chris Spangle and Greg Lenz are back to dissect how Hitler and the Nazis to take over Germany and how the influence of propaganda is still relevant today. Give us one hour, and you will learn:

Propaganda techniques used by the Nazis, and why they were effective.
How to determine when politicians are using propaganda to manipulate you.
Ways to resist the influence of propaganda.
What propaganda can teach libertarians about effective communication?
… and so much more. Listen right now, and you’ll have the tools to become a more informed citizen. Sound good? (Of course it does.) So why wait any longer? Let’s do this thing.

Libertarians Can Solve The Abortion Issue With Evictionism

Abortion doesn’t just divide the left and right in America, it divides libertarians as well.  Libertarian economist Walter Block has come up with a solution called “evictionism” in an attempt to bring both sides together and to allow everyone’s rights to be respected.

What Is Evictionism

Block says that an unborn child, from the point of conception, is a human being with all the rights that any innocent human being has.  Block also says that a pregnant woman owns her body and her womb, and has every right to decide if an unborn child may or may not use her body and womb and for how long.

Block says that because the unborn child is an innocent human being, no one has a right to kill it.  However, since the Mother owns her body and her womb, she has every right to have the child removed at any time in the gentlest manner possible.  In other words, an evictionist couldn’t kill the baby and remove the body like abortionists do today.  They would have to keep the child alive and unharmed as much as medically possible.

What evictionism means for unborn children in today’s world is that most children evicted in the third trimester will survive.  Some evicted in the second trimester will survive.  And any child evicted in the first trimester will die.  For the babies evicted before they are viable outside the womb this is a tragedy.  They are innocent and helpless.  This tragedy, however, doesn’t change the fact that no one has the right to the body of another.  The woman is the owner of her body and she has the right to choose who can or can’t be inside of it or live off of it.

In the near future, however, medical technology will allow for babies evicted at even the earliest stages to survive and live full, healthy lives.

This is a quick and simple explanation of evictionism.  For a deeper understanding you can read a comprehensive essay penned by Block and Roy Whitehead here, or you can listen to a Podcast from the Lions of Liberty where they have a deep discussion with Block about evictionism here.  Otherwise I’ll attempt to quickly handle some objections and add some thoughts of my own.

Objections

The main objection is the idea that the unborn baby is not a trespasser, but was invited into the Mother’s womb by the woman and therefore she must be forced to carry it to term.  The argument is that by agreeing to have sex, the Mother took on the potential responsibility of a baby being created.

In the case of a voluntary sex act, this is a strong objection.  Libertarians don’t concede that positive obligations exist (no one has the right to force you to take care of them, for example), but they do concede that implied agreements can exist.  For example, if I take you up in my hot air balloon, I don’t have the right to kick you off while we’re in midair.  By taking you up in the balloon, it’s implied that I’m going to safely bring you back down!  In the abortion/evictionism debate, the act of sex is claimed to be an implied agreement with the child if a child is created.

There are two problems with this line of thinking.  The most obvious problem is that some pregnancies aren’t agreed to!  Rape is the main example used, but that’s only a small fraction of potential abortion/eviction cases.  There are also cases of birth control failure. There are cases where one of the parties was told by a doctor that they were infertile, but clearly the doctor was wrong!  There are also cases where the man agreed not to release his seed into the women but did so anyway.  In all of these cases, measures were taken to prevent a pregnancy or the woman simply had no choice.  How can the woman be forced to carry the unborn child to term in these cases where she clearly took appropriate measures to prevent a pregnancy or had no choice in the matter?

While it’s true that the unborn child is an innocent bystander in all these cases, that doesn’t mean it has the right to the woman’s body.  Imagine a scenario where you woke up one day and you find that someone surgically attached an innocent person to your body.  In this highly unlikely scenario, you’d have every right to remove this innocent person.  You wouldn’t have the right to kill the person, but no one could say that you should be forced to live with this arrangement, even if it could be proven that surgically removing this innocent person would lead to their death and keeping them surgically attached would mean they could survive.  In this tragic scenario, the innocent person attached to your body can’t force you to keep them since they have no claim to your body.

The second problem with the implied agreement argument is that the child didn’t even exist when this implied agreement was supposedly made.  For there to be an implied agreement between two or more parties, those parties have to exist!  When the voluntary sex act took place, the future child doesn’t exist and therefore can’t be apart of any implied agreement between it and the Mother.

One could still argue that someone engaging in the act of sex clearly knows that a child could be created.  Therefore they should be held accountable by being forced to carry the baby to term if one is created.  As a believer in the importance of personal responsibility, this argument is hard to combat.  On a base level, I agree with it.  I think people who act irresponsible should deal with the results of their actions.  But just because I think this way doesn’t mean I have the right to violate the person or property of someone when they act irresponsibly.

Take for example if I saw someone leave their car for several hours parked in a bad neighborhood, with the engine running, and the door wide open.  This is an incredibly irresponsible thing to do.  This is almost guaranteeing that someone will steal the car.  If I decided to take the car, does the owner still have a claim to it?  After all, I could claim that the person leaving the car was being irresponsible and should live with the outcome.  They knew something like this could happen!  This would be a ludicrous argument though.  The car is still not my property and it still belongs to the owner, even if they were being irresponsible with it.  We can all agree it was irresponsible for the person to leave it running for hours unattended, and we might not have any sympathy if it gets stolen, but that doesn’t negate the owners right to the car.  In the same way if a women is being irresponsible with her sex life.  At the end of the day, she is still the owner of her body with the right to decide if someone should live in it or not.

The only situation where it would be legitimate to punish a woman who gets an eviction is if there were an agreement between the man and woman prior to the pregnancy.  One example would be if the woman was hired to be a surrogate.  She agreed to rent her womb and body out to the person who paid her and thus would be breaking a contract by getting an eviction.

Another example would be if there were some sort of prior agreement between the couple.  They may have agreed that if she were to get pregnant, they must both consent if there was going to be a removal of an unborn child.  In this situation, the woman would have to get the man to sign off on the removal per their prior agreement.  If the man refused to sign off, but she got the unborn child removed anyway, she could be liable for whatever damages were laid out in the contract.

Guardianship Of The Removed Child

So an unwanted fetus is removed, can they simply ignore it and let it die?  If not, who is the guardian responsible for caring for the child?  This is perhaps the most important issue to be worked out for evictionism to be legitimate.  What I say is that whoever performs the eviction is taking over guardianship of the child.  Since the Mother gave up this right, the person agreeing to do the eviction is also agreeing to take on that responsibility.

Therefore, it is the evictionist who must do everything in their power to make sure that not only does the fetus survive the procedure, but that it is taken care of once it is safely out.  “But if libertarians don’t believe in positive obligations, how can the guardian be forced to care for the child?” you ask?

This is the same debate around the question of “Is it legitimate for a parent to neglect their child to the point of injury or death?”  It is not legitimate, because when the parent voluntarily took on the guardianship of a child, they have made an implied agreement to not only care for the child, but to make sure that they find someone else to care for the child if they decide to discontinue their guardianship role.

A parent can decide to stop being a guardian, but they can’t just simply let the child die.  By doing this, and not making an effort to drop the child off at an orphanage or with another suitable guardian, they are precluding others from taking on the guardianship of the child.  In essence, a parent can stop being a guardian of a child if they choose, but they can’t stop others from taking over guardianship of the child.  Therefore, they must seek out a new suitable guardian before they are legitimately able to stop caring for the child.

To wrap up this train of thought, anyone agreeing to perform an eviction procedure is also agreeing to become the guardian of the child until they can find another suitable guardian.  An evictionist who removed a child and let it die would be just as much of a criminal as any parent who neglected their child to the point of death.

The Future

Perhaps the best thing to come out of this theory is that in the not too distant future, all unborn children will be able to survive outside the womb.  Technology will soon allow for even the earliest fetuses to survive and develop normally without a human womb.  Once this is the case, both sides of the abortion issue will have no choice but to accept the evictionism argument.  If you’re pro-choice, how can you possibly advocate for the ability of a Mother to kill her fetus if it can just as easily be removed, saved, and survive?  If you’re pro-life, how can you argue that you have the right to force the Mother to carry her baby to term when she can just as easily and safely let an artificial womb incubate the baby?  If the evictionism theory is the only theory that respects the rights of all parties involved in the future, than we have to begrudgingly admit that it is legitimate today.  Our rights don’t change with the times.  They are the same whether we lived 100 years ago or live 100 years from now.

Originally published on Mike’s website here.  Check out his blog levelheadedlibertarian.com for more!

You may also like this by Mike Tront:

What Would It Look Like If The Federal Government Outlawed Abortion

Our Flag and Anthem Are Bigger than Just Our Military

I love and respect our Flag, Anthem, and nation because of American values embodied in the Declaration, Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Our founding principles gave liberty and freedom an opportunity by flipping the relationship between ruler and citizen upside down. In America, citizens rule, and the government has to ask for permission when it wants to interfere in our life.

Our Founders knew our desire to give up our power and wrote down the values that would keep the spirit of Americanism alive.

The very first thing written? The freedom to speak and petition (protest) your government when citizens feel an injustice is taking place. Never again would a citizen be punished for doing their civic duty: speaking up when the government forgets its place. Nothing is more American than an American peacefully protesting injustices within the government. In my mind, there was no greater patriot in the 20th century than Martin Luther King Jr. Without firing a shot, he changed the hearts and minds of the American people, and they, in turn, changed our government.

Most of the Founders didn’t want a standing Army. They felt the homeland could be best protected by armed citizens who could protect their families, communities, and states. They didn’t dream Americans would have military bases in 170 countries while operating 7 fronts as we do today. I think many of the Founders would be absolutely puzzled that we are arguing over the common sense principle of self-protection coming under attack this week.

I think they’d be equally as shocked that half of our country have narrowed Americanism and the flag down to honoring a standing military and military intervention. Our Flag and Anthem mean so much more than the war powers of our current government.

I do believe our Flag and Anthem represent the fallen and our veterans, but not our policies. In my mind, Americanism is directly opposed to much of what this current government does. It stands for free markets, freedom of association, the right to peacefully live our lives without government agencies harassing us or killing us. Yes, it means honoring the memories of every person that gave their life for this unique experiment, both in and out of uniform. Many thousands of Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice to keep this a shining beacon of hope. That includes those fighting in foreign wars as well as Americans like Emmitt Till.

I’m surrounded by political and religious refugees from Burma. They are wonderful neighbors, and they are adding a lot to our community. Storefronts that sat vacant for years are now thriving, for instance. America represents hope to them. They will lay down tonight in their secure and clean home without the fear of Burmese government agents killing or stealing from them. They will send their children to good schools tomorrow while they make more money than they’ve ever had in their life.

When I stand for the Anthem, my eyes water because of the hardship my great-great-great grandparents endured in leaving their German hometown and moving to a strange land so that one day their ancestors could be prosperous, healthy, clean, and endowed with all the rights given by our Creator. It’s for my Grandfather that nearly died in Okinawa fighting an Imperial menace that threatened the lives of millions of Americans. It’s tears of thanksgiving to God that I live in a country where I can start a media outlet that openly criticizes the ruling class without any fear of retribution.

So yes… the Flag and the Anthem ARE about soldiers that fought and died for this country. It’s about so much more. If Mike Pence and Donald Trump and any person reading this want to reduce it to only that, then they’re being decidedly unpatriotic. They’re being a propagandist, and that is UnAmerican.

Conspiracy Theories Abound in An Absence of Motive

Many conspiracy theories are circulating the internet over the Las Vegas shooting. This is one.

As you read it, your brain will say “Huh. I can buy that.” Then you’ll hear little pieces of evidence that seem to fit that theory. Then you believe it as you see others around you talking about it. Our fellow animals confirm things in our pack. We are also pattern creatures. Our brains love patterns because it saves calories which equals survival.

Conspiracies pop up because the killer fits no pattern. He isn’t in some box where we can classify him and ignore him. Religion, politics, revenge, money or clear mental insanity don’t seem to be his motive. He brought 23 guns into one of the safest areas of the world with the most surveillance. The security at the venue, the police, and government agencies all acted exemplary.

There is nothing to criticize or blame. There’s no motive. There’s nothing that could stop it. There’s nothing that can fix it.

That’s when the existential dread sets in. What if I turn into the monster? What if that old man in the Chili’s on Saturday’s is the next killer? We begin searching for predictability.

Americans take for granted the relative safety that blankets us. In both history and the rest of the world, we’ve never been more likely to return home at the end of the day. We are still humans with danger detectors in our brains, and they are going off.

I am reminded of a friend involved in a domestic violence situation. She was struggling to understand how her ex-husband could turn into a hunter. Her counselor said, “You are a rational being. Our minds are incapable of making sense of the irrational thought. There is no answer, and that is uncomfortable for us.”

233: The Las Vegas Shooting and Gun Control

Chris Spangle, Greg Lenz, Harry Price, and Justin Hutchinson unfold the events of the Las Vegas shootings while refuting arguments that gun control would have prevented this tragedy.



Links: