Well if you're prone to any degree of biological determinism the theoretical ideal is to establish a state of people of proven good moral character first before removing protective bandaids like felony gun prohibitions.
Whether an ethnostate is close enough proxy for that for practical purposes is debatable. It's definitely imperfect, Thomas Sowell alone is worth a thousand mainstream media white guys, but it's hard to argue that in abstract it wouldn't be a net positive in terms of removing the most volatile elements of society, given all the data available. But it's even harder to justify the friendly fire cost involved in achieving such an imperfect solution in any real sense, especially in the state of polarization the country is in.
Personally I'd prefer a more measurable approach than a crude race delineation. So the most pressing need I see in achieving it is first making sure everyone in favor of truth, fairness and prosperity are on the correct page on the reality of the situation so we don't end up with good people fighting each other over misunderstandings/misinformation.
The alternative is to just ride out the country unraveling into a third world shit hole, so there's going to be a cost paid regardless of which path we end up choosing. Like Sowell says, there's no solutions, only trade offs.
Oh yeah, I'm not for going passively into a death spiral. I'd just like to see the right choices made and groundwork laid whilst there's still time to work with.
I think you're going a bit too hard on the truisms now.
There are forms of prosperity that are not part of a zero sum, and instead increase the total sum instead. Primarily technical innovations, but even social structures can be more efficient than others and reduce lost or wasted resources. Until we build a Dyson sphere or something there are myriad ways in which energy is being used ineffectively, and not everything that learns to grow faster has to be a cancer.
And sure life isn't fair, the universe is seemingly indifferent to our existence, but I'm talking about people. They can be fairminded, or they can be decidedly not. And as for the subjectivity, if the instinctive feel of what is and isn't fair is a biological predisposition, then there will almost certainly be others who share the same or close enough to be compatible feelings. Those are your people. As a people with a shared vision of fairness it is in your interest to advance your collective position over any other subjective position to the point that your desires, like changes to felony gun laws, are implicitly understood and desired by those running the state, rather than having to try and force the hand of leaders who don't share your values. The benefits of a shared, implicit moral framework are huge, and if your sense of fairness includes being able to trust even felons with a gun post-punishment, absolutely vital to living in a society you feel is fair.
Well if you're prone to any degree of biological determinism the theoretical ideal is to establish a state of people of proven good moral character first before removing protective bandaids like felony gun prohibitions.
Whether an ethnostate is close enough proxy for that for practical purposes is debatable. It's definitely imperfect, Thomas Sowell alone is worth a thousand mainstream media white guys, but it's hard to argue that in abstract it wouldn't be a net positive in terms of removing the most volatile elements of society, given all the data available. But it's even harder to justify the friendly fire cost involved in achieving such an imperfect solution in any real sense, especially in the state of polarization the country is in.
Personally I'd prefer a more measurable approach than a crude race delineation. So the most pressing need I see in achieving it is first making sure everyone in favor of truth, fairness and prosperity are on the correct page on the reality of the situation so we don't end up with good people fighting each other over misunderstandings/misinformation.
The alternative is to just ride out the country unraveling into a third world shit hole, so there's going to be a cost paid regardless of which path we end up choosing. Like Sowell says, there's no solutions, only trade offs.
Oh yeah, I'm not for going passively into a death spiral. I'd just like to see the right choices made and groundwork laid whilst there's still time to work with.
Counterpoint to “life’s not fair”: That’s no excuse to simply allow it to happen.
I think you're going a bit too hard on the truisms now.
There are forms of prosperity that are not part of a zero sum, and instead increase the total sum instead. Primarily technical innovations, but even social structures can be more efficient than others and reduce lost or wasted resources. Until we build a Dyson sphere or something there are myriad ways in which energy is being used ineffectively, and not everything that learns to grow faster has to be a cancer.
And sure life isn't fair, the universe is seemingly indifferent to our existence, but I'm talking about people. They can be fairminded, or they can be decidedly not. And as for the subjectivity, if the instinctive feel of what is and isn't fair is a biological predisposition, then there will almost certainly be others who share the same or close enough to be compatible feelings. Those are your people. As a people with a shared vision of fairness it is in your interest to advance your collective position over any other subjective position to the point that your desires, like changes to felony gun laws, are implicitly understood and desired by those running the state, rather than having to try and force the hand of leaders who don't share your values. The benefits of a shared, implicit moral framework are huge, and if your sense of fairness includes being able to trust even felons with a gun post-punishment, absolutely vital to living in a society you feel is fair.