A632.5.5.RB_MedleyKim_The Odds of Changing Protected Values

The Odds of Changing Protected Values

            Protected values, as explained by Hoch, Kunreuther, and Gunther (2001), are those for which we “draw a line in the sand” and believe should not be sacrificed for any compensatory benefit, regardless of the level of sacrifice or size of benefit (p. 251). In his presentation before TEDGlobal (2005), Gilbert offers Plato’s prophecy, “What space is to size, Time is to value”. He goes on to describe the world from which our brains evolved and the world in which we now live. Initially, we lived in small groups, with little differences, short life expectancies, and our communal priority was to eat and reproduce (TEDGlobal, 2005). Gilbert states we are the “only species to hold its own fate” (TEDGlobal, 2005). Does that mean we also have the ability to hold our protected values, evaluate and re-evaluate, and attempt to determine expected values of remaining true to those values (TEDGlobal, 2005)? If so, then why as Gilbert notes, does making attempted adjustments with our values “bedevil our attempts to make rational decisions” (TEDGlobal, 2005)?

            I have strong opinions with regards to gun control. LaFollette (2007) queries if the very character of a gun is that which makes it “especially harmful” (p. 183). As he continues, he notes guns were specifically created for armies and “they were designed to cause (and threaten harm)” (LaFollette, 2007, p. 184). This fundamental purpose is what further drives redesign to achieve greater efficiency. We have progressed from flint, musket-ball pistols and rifles, to Glock handguns and AR 15 assault rifles. LaFollette (2007) contends gun control prescribes “what governments should allow private individuals to do” not what the private citizen should do (p. 185). I do believe people have the right to keep and bear arms. Do I think they need an AR-15 or some other rapid fire assault weapon when our ancestors survived quite adequately with long rifles and single shot musket balls? No. Suppose guns were outlawed? Does anyone believe criminals would not develop a way to get guns? We banned alcohol during prohibition and people still drank liquor. Just as extreme positions are taken with gun control; the same occurs with arguments regarding our environment.

            This past August, one of my favorite places in Flagler County was slated to be the site for what was described by the local news service as: 

 The hyper-endurance race, called the “Jacksonville Super at Palm Coast,” entails turning  the preserve into an 8 to 10-mile race course with 24 to 29 “natural” and artificial  obstacles that radically alter the landscape and by Spartan’s own description “may cause substantial wear and tear.” The obstacle courses include barbed wire, scalable walls, mud—though Dunn says mud pits will not be part of this course—fire jumps, tire drags, traverse walls, carrying heavy loads of one sort or another and other obstacles (FlaglerLive, 2015). 

I was absolutely sickened by the thought of such an event taking place at place that is a pristine part of Flagler, and Florida history. I grew up in Florida and spent many a weekend camping and enjoying the beauty of its natural wonders. I took my children camping and shared that same sense of wonder and awe of Mother Nature. Although I am a member of the local tourism and can appreciate their efforts for wanting to bring sporting events to Flagler in order to boost all of the relevant taxes and increase tourism dollars; this was a line in the sand moment. The overall cost and impact to the land far outweighed the added benefit to tourism, at least in my mind. As FlaglerLive (2015) provided:

  Spartan will be charging runners from $79 to $109, and more on the day of the race. It    will have exclusive rights to parking fees and concessions, forbidding the county from    having any competing, similar revenue sources. And Spartan “shall be entitled to retain    all proceeds for the event, including ticketing, merchandise sales, onsite food, beverage    and alcohol sales, coat checks, sponsorship and broadcast rights,” the contract states,    “all obtained and priced in Spartan’s sole discretion.

The ultimate slap in the face was this line, "Rather, the contract leaves Spartan harmless if it does not restore a venue to its original state" (FlaglerLive, 2015). Thanks to many like-minded people, a Facebook Group was created and the event was cancelled. Local happenings affect me more than world-wide events such as world hunger.

            I well remember my parents telling me there were starving children around the world who would be happy to have the dinner my mother worked to prepare. Funny, this same conversation always took place on the nights we had liver; a food I do not eat to this day. Singer opines we have a “positive obligation to help those in great need” so long as the personal cost is not excessive; and, I would add so long as we know the money being sent actually reaches the people and the region in need (Happy & Well, 2012). Singer offers a progressive table as a solution that allows a person to enter their annual earnings, adjust for currency and purchasing power, and arrive at a percentage that allows for charitable giving while not asking the person to give up luxuries such as eating out, or going to the movies (Happy & Well, 2012). Singer states the average Australian would be asked to give five percent of annual earnings. If the average middle-income family earned $50,000; then 5% would equal $2500 annually, or less than $50 weekly (Happy & Well, 2012). Could the average middle-income family afford to divert $50.00 a week? The dilemma, if you will, is that because hunger and poverty happens all the time, each and every day, we do not necessarily hear about it such as we would a disaster like Hurricane Katrina. We know it’s there; but, we don’t wade into the weeds.

            I well remember Katrina. The call to action was heard across the globe, thus demonstrating LaFollette’s (2007) position, “Our global economy makes our mutual dependence clear” (p. 244). Harm had been done and even though neither sole nor predominant responsibility could be assigned to any individual; and, while it mattered not which stage of the “demographic transition theory (DTT)” New Orleans’ residents occupied, there was never any cry to “let’em starve” (LaFollette, 2007, p. 242). Americans gave and gave greatly; and, when it was reported abuses took place regarding government funds that had been given to victims; people questioned purchases such as breast augmentations and designer purses; but, still gave.

            Yes, there are ways we can all help. I volunteer for a program known as Feed Flagler that collects food throughout the year in order to provide not only a Thanksgiving meal for the needy in Flagler County; it also donates canned goods to local food pantries. This is a continuation of helping collect food through the Boys Scouts’ program, Scouting for Food, designed as an Eagle Scout project to address neighborhood hunger. As Singer notes, people are often skeptical with regards to giving money as they are unsure if a greater portion of the funds actually reach targeted countries (Happy & Well, 2012). It seems to me if the IRS can ask for a $1 contribution to the presidential campaign fund; we should be able to designate a portion of our refund to a specific charity that has been approved by the U.S. Government as one that truly meets the needs of the hungry and can demonstrate its programs are effective.

            As I age, some of my views strengthen, while others soften. I see a greater need to be aware of the environmental issues than I did twenty years ago. Likewise, some gun regulation is required; but, not a complete ban and subsequent confiscation. I have grown more critical of world hunger issues primarily because of the groups running the programs. I still recall taxpayer dollars sent to Katrina victims that never purchased survival supplies. Nonetheless, our willingness to protect our values often begins with a line in the sand that in some situations can and should be adjusted based on new information and more experiences. It is the emotion we attach to our protected values that cause us, as Gilbert notes, to become so “bedeviled” with rational decisions (TEDGlobal, 2005). Time is what allows us to hold our ability to periodically adjust our values in our hands and know when to stand firm. Twenty years ago, the odds of changing my values on gun control, the environment, and world hunger were quite slim; but, as I age and acquire more education, I often pause to rethink and readjust. 

References

Happy & Well. (2012, Jun. 30). Peter Singer 'The life you can save' at Happiness & Its Causes             2012. [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpV56D05ag0

Hoch, S.J., Kunreuther, H.C., & Gunther, R.E. (2001). Wharton on Making Decisions.

            Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

LaFollette, H. (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

TEDGlobal. (2005). Dan Gilbert: Why we make bad decisions. [Video file]. Retrieved from

            http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_researches_happiness#t-1480

Tristam, P. (2015, Aug. 19). Princess Place Preserve Slated for Extreme-Sport-Type Endurance       Race, and 6,000 Racers. FlaglerLive. Retrieved from             http://flaglerlive.com/82576/spartan-race-palm-coast/

A634.8.3.RB_MedleyKim_Let the Lambs Contest

Let the Lambs Contest

            It is a debate that has raged for 239 years. Since the time of our Declaration of Independence, the “serious right to keep and bear arms”, as discussed by LaFollette (2007), is a debate often viewed from two extremes, either private citizens may not own “any gun” to private citizens may own guns “with no restrictions” (p. 179). Bailey (n.d.) presents the author of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria:

False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. Laws that forbid the carrying of arms laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they act rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed  man.

LaFollette (2007) states, “the best overall moral practice is one in which normative questions arise from our attempts to wrestle with concrete moral issues” from which both “meta-ethical questions” and “careful reflection” may illuminate each inquiry and lead to reasonable considerations (p. 1). As with any ethical discussion, an historical perspective is always helpful. As LaFollette (2007) primarily discusses gun control in the United States, a brief look at the debates taking place at the time of the proponents and opponents of the U.S. Constitution provides the beginning arguments.

            Writing as Publius in Federalist No. 46, Hamilton, Madison, and Jay (2003) warn that is either State or Congressional legislatures fail to “sufficiently enlarge their policy to embrace the collective welfare”, then “measures will too often be decided according to their probable effect, not on the national prosperity and happiness, but on the prejudices, interests, and pursuits of the governments and people of the individual States” (p. 293). They imagine a time wherein “an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray” could amass power and control over the people through a standing army; however, the repel to such a danger would be well-armed citizens, ready to stand with their State (Hamilton et al., 2003, p. 295). They further offer if a standing army, controlled by the provisions of the Constitution, equaling “one hundredth” of our population at the time, not more than 30,000 men, were to be used to against the citizens, by sheer numbers, an opposing militia of almost 500,000 well-armed citizens would repel any such attempt to deny “common liberties” (Hamilton et al., 2003, p. 296). This was the reality facing our country at the time of its independence.

            Opponents, writing as Anti-Federalists and presented by Raffin (2010), are those, who through their “meta-ethical questions” helped lead to the development of the Bill of Rights (LaFollette, 2007, p. 1). The Federalists came up with a list of the “least restrictive” requests and assured opponents of their eventual passage (Raffin, 2010). George Mason, a strong voice of the Anti-Federalists copied “to keep and to bear arms” from “Virginia’s Declaration of Rights” and married those words with “concerning a well-regulated militia as the defense against a standing army” (Raffin, 2010). What concerns did Anti-Federalists express? Based on historical evidence from both England and our nation’s early years, it was well understood a standing armies “were the main tool monarchs used to impose their will in 17^th century England” (Raffin, 2010). This practice eventually led to the adoption of an “English Bill of Rights” which included a “Militia Act” allowing Protestant subjects to “have arms for their defense” (Raffin, 2010). This act only protected citizenry from the crown, not Parliament; and, because of this, Madison declares this portion of England’s Bill of Rights, “inapplicable” (Raffin, 2010). Our founders feared an out of control government, not simple an overzealous monarch. In 1774, “a secret military” standing arming seized “publicly owned gunpowder in the Charleston powder house” (Raffin, 2010). This led Patrick Henry to head a detail to either regain possession or reimbursement for the powder; and, more importantly, Massachusetts added “keeping” to its “bearing” of arms in its State “declaration of rights”, from which Mason borrowed the language (Raffin, 2010). Anti-Federalists also worried the Federal Constitution would overrule those of the States and not only would state militias be destroyed through defunding, individual rights would be lost to the federal government (Raffin, 2010). Pennsylvania, along with its delegation of Anti-Federalists, passed the following to its bill of rights:

The people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for   disarming the people of any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals (Raffin, 2010).

It is the element of real danger that drives the debate today.

            LaFollette (2007) queries if the very character of a gun is that which makes it “especially harmful” (p. 183). As he continues, he notes guns were specifically created for armies and “they were designed to cause (and threaten harm)” (LaFollette, 2007, p. 184). This fundamental purpose is what further drives redesign to achieve greater efficiency. We have progressed from flint, musket-ball pistols and rifles, to Glock handguns and AR 15 assault rifles. LaFollette (2007) contends gun control prescribes “what governments should allow private individuals to do” not what the private citizen should do (p. 185). Statistics listed by Williamson (2013) demonstrate a less than clear answer as to whether homicides in the U.S. are tied to gun ownership. The U.S. realizes a “4.8 per 100,000” homicide rate (Williamson, 2013). Switzerland, described as a “gun-loving” nation has a lower murder rate than the United Kingdom, known for its tight gun control measures (Williamson, 2013). Sweden and Cuba, the latter being a “police state”, realize a murder rate of 5.0, higher than the U.S. (Williamson, 2013). The majority of “gun deaths” in the U.S. are attributed to suicide, not murder (Williamson, 2013). Likewise, assault rifles accounted for 358 deaths in 2010 (Williamson, 2013). Guns defined as “legally owned fully automatic weapons” have been tied to only two murders and of those two, one was used by a policeman against a troubled individual (Williamson, 2013). Given there is a wide range of results with the combination of strict or liberal gun policies, the constant variable with any equation is the “violent crime”, not the number of gun laws on the books (Williamson, 2013). Williamson (2013) notes those states with strict gun laws and discovers many of the gun sales take place illegally and as such statistics are easily manipulated to provide the appearance of lower crime rates. For example, a gun illegally sold in Illinois and used to commit a crime in Indiana does not appear in any records of Illinois (Williamson, 2013). He goes on to suggest a correlation that differs from LaFollette (2007). Whereas LaFollette (2007) observes strong correlations between gun ownership and violent crimes; Williamson (2013) points to a “correlation between municipal liberalism and violent crime” that is much stronger than LaFollette’s (2007) observation. Williamson (2013) cites Detroit, Chicago, and Philadelphia, long governed with liberal policies and warns New Yorkers they will miss “nanny-in-chief Michael Bloomberg” once replaced by the same “cookie-cutter Democratic-machine liberal”. He may very well be on to something.

            Of the arguments LaFollette (2007) presents, I rather appreciate the idea of liability insurance. Certainly there is sufficient statistical data from which to form actuarial tables that could provide appropriate rate differences for a policy covering a hand gun as opposed to one insuring an assault weapon. I believe this would encourage owners to teach their children how to use the weapon, as was the case in the early days of our founding. Children, much younger than we can imagine, often learned to fire and care for a weapon before learning to ride a horse. As with teaching our children to drive, we encourage them to pass driver-educational course in order to receive lower insurance rates. We add insurance coverage so they can operate the vehicle. I have no doubt law-abiding citizens would endeavor to comply; but, criminals, regardless of the regulations, just as we saw with prohibition, will always find a way to obtain a weapon if they are intent on doing harm. Because of this, I do agree it is a citizen’s “right to keep and bear arms”, especially in the aftermath of California. Apparently others believe this, too, as according to many headlines, gun sales have increased because of the current administration.

References

Bailey, B. (n.d.). The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment. The Federalist Papers

            Project. Retrieved from https://www.thefederalistpapers.org/history/the-founding-fathers-       on-the-second-amendment

Hamilton, A., Madison, J., & Jay, J. (2003). The Federalist Papers. (C. Rossiter, Ed.).

            New York: Signet Classic.

LaFollette, H. (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Raffin, R. (2010, May). Mason, Madison, and Militias: A Progressive for a Right to Bear Arms.

            Stanford Progressive. Retrieved from http://www.stanford.edu/group/progressive/cgi-      bin/?p=559

Williamson, K.D. (2013, May 3). The Dishonest Gun-Control Debate. National Review.

            Retrieved from http://www.nationalreview.com/article/347263/dishonest-gun-control-           debate-kevin-d-williamson