Ok, here is something I thought about over the years a lot. Thing is, I am German and lived in my youth in the US. Maybe the US has changed so much for the worse. But back then, about 40 years ago, I was absolutely, 100% sure that Germans would shoot each other much more than Americans if we had such lax gun ownership laws. What amazed me then (and all Europeans) was the - in our view - gentle way of Americans in public. The smiles, the good nature and - as for the downside - the basic gullability of Americans. Gullability as being the effect of a more trusting society. Sure, thinsg might have changed. But seriously, 40 years ago it wouldn´t have been a good idea to trust Germans with guns the way Americans were trusted with them.
Friedman acts like his goofy Leftist ass would say anything if a large man shoved him and was being belligerent even if he could be 100% sure the guy wasn't armed.
Someone who's intimidated by a gun is likely intimidated by any kind of confrontation or physical contact. At most, he might say a word or two, but would backtrack the moment someone stands up to him.
Max, this is one of your best pieces yet, particularly your middle section about violent behavior springing from an amoral core not from the tools available. Reading it, I had Adam's quote about a constitution "for a moral and religious people". Lots of people know that end line, but earlier he says that no government can ever "contend with human passions unbridled by morality and religion."
Civilization is only possible when the vast majority of men (and it is mostly men we're talking about here) voluntarily eschew uncivilized behavior. What causes men to do that is, as you say, "a strong sense of in-group identity with and a strong culture will hold you accountable for your actions." The weak men who lead us are actively tearing down precisely these traits. Great piece.
Proof that it really is the people who decide what your best work is! I always wished it'd be the pieces about civil conflict and personal safety, but I'll take the compliment!
The irony of civilization is that we have to want it to restrain our behavior in order for it to function. Somehow, we've come to believe the purpose of civilization is to give us free reign to do whatever we want without consequence, but again, this is actually the antithesis of civilization.
Interesting dissertation, but my final take is still this: without a strong death penalty imposed shortly after the verdict, boorish behavior will continue.
If the little man with the big gun knows he will have to pay for the consequenses of his actions, he will learn to control his temper - or it will be permanently controlled for him.
Ok, here is something I thought about over the years a lot. Thing is, I am German and lived in my youth in the US. Maybe the US has changed so much for the worse. But back then, about 40 years ago, I was absolutely, 100% sure that Germans would shoot each other much more than Americans if we had such lax gun ownership laws. What amazed me then (and all Europeans) was the - in our view - gentle way of Americans in public. The smiles, the good nature and - as for the downside - the basic gullability of Americans. Gullability as being the effect of a more trusting society. Sure, thinsg might have changed. But seriously, 40 years ago it wouldn´t have been a good idea to trust Germans with guns the way Americans were trusted with them.
Will talk about your comment in my next entry. Stay tuned.
Friedman acts like his goofy Leftist ass would say anything if a large man shoved him and was being belligerent even if he could be 100% sure the guy wasn't armed.
Someone who's intimidated by a gun is likely intimidated by any kind of confrontation or physical contact. At most, he might say a word or two, but would backtrack the moment someone stands up to him.
Max, this is one of your best pieces yet, particularly your middle section about violent behavior springing from an amoral core not from the tools available. Reading it, I had Adam's quote about a constitution "for a moral and religious people". Lots of people know that end line, but earlier he says that no government can ever "contend with human passions unbridled by morality and religion."
Civilization is only possible when the vast majority of men (and it is mostly men we're talking about here) voluntarily eschew uncivilized behavior. What causes men to do that is, as you say, "a strong sense of in-group identity with and a strong culture will hold you accountable for your actions." The weak men who lead us are actively tearing down precisely these traits. Great piece.
Proof that it really is the people who decide what your best work is! I always wished it'd be the pieces about civil conflict and personal safety, but I'll take the compliment!
The irony of civilization is that we have to want it to restrain our behavior in order for it to function. Somehow, we've come to believe the purpose of civilization is to give us free reign to do whatever we want without consequence, but again, this is actually the antithesis of civilization.
If you haven't read Patrick Deneen's last 2 books, you should. Why Liberalism failed is the better of the two; Regime Change is only so-so.
Interesting dissertation, but my final take is still this: without a strong death penalty imposed shortly after the verdict, boorish behavior will continue.
If the little man with the big gun knows he will have to pay for the consequenses of his actions, he will learn to control his temper - or it will be permanently controlled for him.