Laws of Human Dynamics

1. FN’s First Law of Human Dynamics–Within a standard deviation above the norm of intellect, people will believe that a statement of an axiom is a reflection of deep understanding and reason.

Lemma 1: Most people will see some moral aspect to an axiom.

2. FN’s Second Law of Human Dynamics–all human activity involves various states of inefficiency and lost energy. This increase in entropy is directly proportional to the number of people engaged in a specific action. Government involvement multiplies this entropic loss by several factors.

3. FN’s Law of Human Uncertainly (or the Human Uncertainty Principle)–No 2 people can develop the same well-ordering of outcomes.

Corollary: There are no perfect solutions to any human issue. Circumstances, perceptions, and moral principles determine the impossibility of viewing with complete clarity and objectivity the same outcome or circumstance.

4. Spite Principle–a large portion of any population will refuse a significant improvement in social outcomes, if the implementation involves actions opposed by their world-view.

Lemme 1: Large numbers of people will embrace personal harm if they see it as harming people they dislike.

5. FN’s Law Of “Shoulds” : People maintain a limitless list of “shoulds” that are unobtainable.

Lemma 1: “Shoulds” will invariably be used to obstruct sound, achievable policy.

On Arming Teachers

There was a post on FB that stated that 73% of teachers oppose the move to arm teachers. I responded that the percent probably tracks with party affiliation–most teachers lean dem. Immediately I got a virtue-signaling reply about it being life or death, not dem/repub.

Really? We can’t just make an observation–one which turned out to be near dead-nuts–72% of dems oppose arming teachers–without the secular sanctimony?

Allowing teachers to carry arms (I don’t know of anyone who’s proposing that they be required to carry) is a debatable issue. Certainly there are safety issues about firearms in the school beyond the function as a deterrent or a defense, and I say this as a gun-wacko myself (check my previous posts). But the fact is there a substantial perceived risk vs reality that is driving policies through emotion rather than reason. Sigh.

How about this–try to speak of facts or reasonable predictions over calling me nazi, racist, homophobe, sexist, fascist, etc. I will refrain from calling you a moron (even if you are) if you refrain from calling me evil.

A Reasoned View of the Second Amendment

Here’s a read from a fairly strong libertarian gun-nut.

The 2nd was written to ensure the ability of a free people to form effective militias against a tyrannical government. Early on this was viewed as the right to form self-defense bodies with small arms, not fully equipped armies that could invade and occupy a state. In that light–and the fact that land power was directly measured by the size of the force you could field since the arms carried by a private citizen were near equal (in some cases superior) to the arms professional military carried–the right to keep and bear arms was straight forward. Until the turn of the last century that held well enough, but subsequent developments made true armies far more deadly than any militia.

Case law developed–based on a reasonable view that public safety trumped a raw determination of the 2nd–to limit access to the more lethal weapons. Said work was generally accepted as within the context of The Constitution, with which I and most other gun-nuts agree.

But what few of us really seem to speak to is two fold–the danger of a non-representative government arising here (virtually nil) and an assumed right back then that every person had a right to self-defense.

So I do think the stated purpose of the 2nd–preventing a tyranny–has been proved unnecessary with the rule of law our Nation has established. What I don’t think is well addressed is your right to the MEANS of self-defense; a right I would consider as critical as any other.

Which brings me to the last point: self-defense is well accomplished by simple firearms–a shotgun or handgun. And yes, they do need to be capable of carrying sufficient multiple rounds for effectiveness. How many is that? The answer is fuzzy, though my most common concealed carry is a 5-shot snubbie. But I’m not your average shot–I can hit a orange at 25 yards with a revolver firing double action. Most people can’t do that.

So, debate away on the mag capacity.

Lying Bernie Sanders and Morons

I lived in Vermont from 1980 to 1999; years of much enjoyment. The state is truly beautiful and charming, and even the snow was bearable simply for the fact that I was in Vermont.

But one of the irritants of living there is being surrounded by the infantile left–legions of trust-fund babies from Mass, Conn and NY, who have no need to work and are convinced that they have the solution to every possible ill in the lives of the downtrodden. Just the fact that Bernie Sanders is a hero there tells you pretty much everything you need to know.

And no matter what the outcome of far-left policy gives, the true believers remained true believers. Which brings me to one of Bernie’s special projects–taking your healthcare out of your hands and delivering it to bureaucrats.

In the evening I would be down in the basement doing whatever-the-hell I did down there. I kept the radio on a local station which would frequently give the mic to Bernie who rarely passed on the chance to extol the wonders of Soviet “free” healthcare. I can still hear his, “Good quality healthcare,’ coming from his lying mouth.

Bernie is a hard-head who can never, ever admit being wrong–no matter how that affects you. Even he knows the “free Federal jobs for all,” is impossible to provide without absolute squalor (as in Venezuela).

And unfortunately we have large swathes of morons who believe in free stuff.