Tuesday, March 16, 2021

Gun Control and El Salvador

 

Tucker Carlson tonight aired an interview with the President of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele.  Bukele fretted over the fact that it was the bold, the risk-takers, the entrepreneurs, the economic drivers that were fleeing El Salvador and making a hazardous trip north to the United States.  The incentives the United States offers to new immigrants are draining the lifeblood out of his country.

As I watched him describe how murders in his country have been reduced by 75% in recent years, I wondered what 'gun control' looked like there.  This is what WikiPedia has to say on that topic:

Salvador law aims to allow and regulate civilian possession of firearms.  In order to get a firearm license one must have no criminal record, be at least 21 years of age (24 for a carry license), pay a tax stamp (around $32 dollars) and undergo a written test.  The process takes around three hours in total.  In 2017 there were 344,587 registered firearms in El Salvador, or 5.6 per 100 people (1 in 18).

All things considered, that's pretty easy-going for a Central American country, and that may be related to the sudden drop in murder.  An armed society, after all, is a polite society.

What does that say about Salvadorans who flee the poor economic climate at home for the United States?  People like David Codrea worry that Central American immigrants are going to be heavily Democratic in their politics.  This says something different: Salvadorans are going to expect to be able to arm themselves in this country, and I suspect they will not be closely attuned to Democrats' traditional stance on guns and gun ownership.  I suspect they're going to be joining the NRA or GOA and thumbing their collective noses at Democrats' efforts to disarm the American people — of which they hope to soon be part of.

Such a population merged with others from the same or similar cultures constitute a contractable virus.  Salvadorans are going to infect their compadres with the desire to be free (at last) from the fears that drove them north.  They're going to want to be free — freer — than they were back home.  They're going to want their own guns.  They're not going to be Democrats, at least when it comes to 'gun control'.  On that issue, they're going to be Americans.

 

Thursday, March 11, 2021

On The Epilogue of "Tipping Point"

 

Several people have remarked to me regarding the ending of "Tipping Point" that they didn't understand what happened (or what was happening) in the Epilogue, chapter 28, specifically with reference to the interactions between Lulu Pleasance and Bobbie Farquhar and between Florence Persky and Steven Miller.  This is as I intended.  You have to write your own ending for this tale.  That's not simply 'fair', it's necessary — for no one can predict the outcome of a civil war in all its ramifications.

As of that point in the story, the U.S. Constitution has been amended to make clear that secession is within the powers of the states, and several states have taken advantage of that power to separate themselves from what was once the United States of America.  Deliberately left unsaid is whether or not any of the naturally expected changes (the contraction of the federal government chief among them) have acted to draw any of those states back into the "united States" (as the Declaration of Independence itself identifies them), or whether or not there now exists two (or more) independent polities within that territory.  What do you think?  That is the most important question left unanswered as Tipping Point closes:  how do you think this has all worked out — if it has worked out.

What is the significance of the crossbow pins and emblems?  Have the erstwhile "freedom fighters" been able to come out into the open or are those pins the equivalent of "a secret handshake" among people whose involvement can only be known among others in the same situation?  What do you think?

Those pins are all of a single design it seems, yet are differentiated by small, perhaps barely noticeable decorations.  What's the significance of a diamond chip as opposed to an amethyst chip?  Those who can read the language of flags may sometimes be able to say something on the order of "that cruiser is Brazilian and is commanded by a Rear Admiral; the crew is on shore leave, and there's no smoking allowed just now because they're transferring ammunition".  The decorations on the pins are of such a nature, but to catalog the meaning of each is not relevant to the story.  If you really need an explanation, you could just as easily make one up yourself.

Some have scoffed at the notion that states ought to be able to secede at will, yet the 10th amendment seems to leave such powers with the states, and the notion of secession vs. permanence of the union is nowhere else addressed; the 10th amendment would seem to be the controlling law.  Viewed from a strictly rational vantage, one has to wonder what benefit is gained by forcing some region or people to remain united after changes to their worldview have separated them (philosophically) from their former neighbors.  If we are to treat each other as comrades, does that not require us to wish each other the best of futures?  And, if our neighbor thinks their best future is attained by independence, should we not wish them well and let them go?

As well, to think that such questions can be adequately answered by civil war has proven to be wishful thinking of the highest order.  The first U.S. Civil (sic) War is still being fought — it did not end at Appomattox; only the shooting and the killing ended there.  Would any sane person suggest that we could finally get a definitive answer by doing it all again, but this time bigger and better?  I don't believe that, and I hope no one else does, either.

"But, wait..."  I hear someone say,  "that implies that regions could secede from nations, counties secede from states, neighborhoods secede from cities, and neighbors secede from neighborhoods!  That's madness!"

That is, in fact, what such an attitude implies.  It's the ultimate "freedom of association" that we are free to associate or to disassociate down to the individual person.  That is, after all, what marriage and divorce are, is it not?  We call it 'independence' as if it is something different when practiced by nations, but it is precisely the same thing.  Why can we not go to court and get a decree separating ourselves?  Why, in fact, might we need a court?  The answer is that, in a rational society, political dissociation ought to be as simple as "I'm done here!"  Imagine how much bloodshed might have been prevented over the eons by simply understanding that keeping a polity — or a person — captive harms both sides?

Forced unity is, in fact, a way to maintain one’s power — nothing more.  The king, the duke, the earl always has the wherewithal to force the peasants to stay where they are.  There’s no need to negotiate when armed soldiers are ready to enforce the will of those at the top of the food chain, yet... if the duke can get the peasants to do the work voluntarily — because they see it as a win-win situation — the duke no longer needs to maintain so large an army and so needs less revenue, making the peasants better off.  ‘Coercion’ always has a cost associated even if we can’t see it.  So it is with nations.  So it is with all of us. 

Some have specifically asked about 'Steven Miller', the man who rents a car from Hertz rental agent Florence Persky in the very last paragraph of Chapter 28, and as in several other cases, I have declined to further identify him.

Like the character 'V' from "V For Vendetta", Steven Miller is 'Everyman'.  He is you and me and your cousin Bob and the neighbor you don't particularly like.  In the grand scheme of things, he is nobody, and therefore he is everybody, and he made the events of "Tipping Point" possible.