Irreni Solutions: Guns, Lots of Guns
Hi! Happy Friday!
Guns, lots of guns!
Guns, lots of guns is an epic line from the original Matrix movie. Of course the guns are not real because a.) The Matrix is a movie and b.) Neo and Trinity are preparing to go into the virtual reality with their lots of guns to fight a virtual reality war.
I love guns in games, movies and television. Bombs too, I'm a big action movie fan.
I detest guns in real life.
Guns are an excellent topic of discussion for Irreni World Scale. Guns represent a moral relativity challenge with each side wanting or not wanting guns sees the other side as morally wrong. I personally consider the 2nd amendment a tyranny and an oppression upon my person. I do not want guns. Gun rights are a moral wrong in my view.
One moral argument that guns provide safety is provably logic justifying feeling. A gun will cost around $400 plus $100/year in ammo if one stays in practice. If you ask an insurance actuary about spending that kind of money on safety then they will tell that spending that kinda money on alarms, lighting and other non-lethal safety measures are far more effective. You are not home 99% of the time when you will actually get robbed at home. Guns can't do anything for an empty home. Get a dog. How many gun owners have been victim of home invasions while they were not home? Guess what? Guns in the home make no difference for home invasions when the home is empty. The question is this: many gun owners have spent the same amount of money on lights, alarms and other safety measures as they have on guns? The answer is less than 1%. There are more guns than there are Americans, yet home alarms not so much. Less than 1% of Americans have home alarms. So the argument that guns are about safety is morally bogus. Guns are an emotional buy. Lets just admit that fact and move on. Guns and abortion are emotional topics mostly immune to rational argument. As Mark Twain aptly points out, guns and abortion are cases of logic justifying ones feelings.
And that's okay.
The disingenuous aspect to emotional debates like with guns and abortion is that a presumption of reason is proffered but the person making the argument is not compelled by the reason they give. Feelings are the at the root of the gun and abortion debate, not reason. This is not a case where science prevails. Science only aligns claims with evidence. Wants are first principles.
I'm bringing up guns to make a point. Irreni World Scale supports wants as well as science. Irreni World Scale promotes wants via the Sexy Principle. While it is true I heavily promote running massive amounts of scientific social experiments so as to match claims with evidence, I also advocate the Sexy Principle that we all state what we want:
Irreni solutions argues for wants, not rights. Irreni replaces rights with wants. There should be no universally enshrined rights. All morals are relative.
I want guns in entertainment. I do not want guns in real life. I will vote and advocate my wants. Rights have always been deceptive because rights, like wants, require the will of the people. Anything that requires our will is not a right, but a want. Rights have never been uniformly applied as those who argue for rights posit. Rights smack of religion and the supernatural. Wants are all natural and mutable generation-to-generation, supporting the COx principle:
The COx principle values wants over rights: every generation gets to decide what they want. So let us be honest with each other about what we want with guns. How do we resolve competing wants if rights are no longer emblazoned in some fundamental document such as the constitution?
Let us consider three approaches to resolving relative morals:
The firs approach above is we have the vote off. One case of the the vote off would perhaps be a city zone meeting. Or perhaps another case of the vote off would be law suit brings the case in a front of a judge who decides, a judge who was previously voted into office.
The second approach to resolving relative morality is consensus where the two home owners case could reach consensus via arbitration. Both home owners could agree to abide by an arbitration agreement determined by a mediator.
The third approach, the holistic approach, is where Irreni solutions are heading. No decision lives in a vacuum of isolation. For example, all things being equal in the two home owner case would could consider factors unrelated to the subject at hand. If, say, home owner one performs 200 hours of community service every year and the second home owner only lives part-time in the city then one holistic approach might be to favor the first home owner because home owner one has higher value to the community. An obvious problem with this holistic approach is wealth is usually the top metric of value in any community whereby the wealthy would always be judged more valued. That's not fair.
The holistic priorities then would necessarily need to be agreed upon by the community as a whole within a community such that all parties were aware of them at all times. Even better would be if a scoring system were continually in place at all times. Call this ones citizenry metric. Where would such data live? In the Device of Life (DOL) of course. Every citizen has incentive to participate in citizenry actions to tip the scales of moral relative decision making.
Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The holistic approach in the previous paragraph was proposed just now would need to go through experimentation. But the idea remains to promote a holistic approach to relative moral resolutions that is scored across the expanse of a cultures moral landscape. The objective is to promote holistic citizenry participation far greater than just paying taxes and voting that we have today. The approach is to promote the entirety of a community's wants as the entire set above and beyond any single want.
Coming back full circle then how should hot button issues such as guns be handled? All in? All out? No. Because all in or all out is about rights and not wants. The Irreni solution is to use a holistic approach. We promote different communities that have overall narratives of the kind of society people in that community want to live in and then give those relative moral communities boundaries. Some communities will have will have guns and some will not. Wants, not rights, are the answer.
For me I'll be in the community where guns are unfettered in entertainment and yet not allowed in reality. That would be my preferred community.
Communities of differing moral standards will spill over into each other where gun communities will exist next to gun-free communities. This is not a problem. This will just be one of the many new frontiers that Irreni World Scale will need to resolve where today a Supreme Court regulating interstate and inter-country commerce has surely failed.
Cheers!
Scale your empathy, scale the world!
Find your tribe!
Be sexy people!
The future is coming!
Innovate at a rapid pace!
Slow speed ahead!
Well come! and well met!
Guns, lots of guns!
Guns, lots of guns is an epic line from the original Matrix movie. Of course the guns are not real because a.) The Matrix is a movie and b.) Neo and Trinity are preparing to go into the virtual reality with their lots of guns to fight a virtual reality war.
I love guns in games, movies and television. Bombs too, I'm a big action movie fan.
I detest guns in real life.
Logic is the justification of ones own feelings.I'm somewhat of an enigma when it comes to violence. When it comes to the imagination I'm down with it. When it comes to reality, no guns. Does that make me a hypocrite or just human?
-Mark Twain
Guns are an excellent topic of discussion for Irreni World Scale. Guns represent a moral relativity challenge with each side wanting or not wanting guns sees the other side as morally wrong. I personally consider the 2nd amendment a tyranny and an oppression upon my person. I do not want guns. Gun rights are a moral wrong in my view.
One moral argument that guns provide safety is provably logic justifying feeling. A gun will cost around $400 plus $100/year in ammo if one stays in practice. If you ask an insurance actuary about spending that kind of money on safety then they will tell that spending that kinda money on alarms, lighting and other non-lethal safety measures are far more effective. You are not home 99% of the time when you will actually get robbed at home. Guns can't do anything for an empty home. Get a dog. How many gun owners have been victim of home invasions while they were not home? Guess what? Guns in the home make no difference for home invasions when the home is empty. The question is this: many gun owners have spent the same amount of money on lights, alarms and other safety measures as they have on guns? The answer is less than 1%. There are more guns than there are Americans, yet home alarms not so much. Less than 1% of Americans have home alarms. So the argument that guns are about safety is morally bogus. Guns are an emotional buy. Lets just admit that fact and move on. Guns and abortion are emotional topics mostly immune to rational argument. As Mark Twain aptly points out, guns and abortion are cases of logic justifying ones feelings.
And that's okay.
The disingenuous aspect to emotional debates like with guns and abortion is that a presumption of reason is proffered but the person making the argument is not compelled by the reason they give. Feelings are the at the root of the gun and abortion debate, not reason. This is not a case where science prevails. Science only aligns claims with evidence. Wants are first principles.
I'm bringing up guns to make a point. Irreni World Scale supports wants as well as science. Irreni World Scale promotes wants via the Sexy Principle. While it is true I heavily promote running massive amounts of scientific social experiments so as to match claims with evidence, I also advocate the Sexy Principle that we all state what we want:
Sexy Principle of Human Quality.
The entire expanse of folk living are obligated to communicate models of living quality. We cannot deliver expectations of quality of life unless we know what these expectations are. We should all be movie makers promoting our own expectations. We should all be role players in role playing games to try out expectations and experiment what it is like to be in someone else’s shoes.
Irreni solutions argues for wants, not rights. Irreni replaces rights with wants. There should be no universally enshrined rights. All morals are relative.
I want guns in entertainment. I do not want guns in real life. I will vote and advocate my wants. Rights have always been deceptive because rights, like wants, require the will of the people. Anything that requires our will is not a right, but a want. Rights have never been uniformly applied as those who argue for rights posit. Rights smack of religion and the supernatural. Wants are all natural and mutable generation-to-generation, supporting the COx principle:
COx Principle of Human Quality.
Contradictory Oxygen principle is an allusion to an expression oft uttered where someone sucks all of the "oxygen" out of the room by talking over everyone else. In this case of COx I am referring to the dead stealing all of the oxygen from the living. Of course the dead do not breathe and ergo the contradictory oxygen principle. This principle states that no generation of living folk can obligate the next generation of folk after passing on...especially to the point to where someone is born into a completely proscribed, planned and obligated situation brought about by the dead. This is tyranny of the dead for the living. We are building out planet Earth materially, legally and culturally and that should not presume any obligation on the living because of what was built in the past.
The COx principle values wants over rights: every generation gets to decide what they want. So let us be honest with each other about what we want with guns. How do we resolve competing wants if rights are no longer emblazoned in some fundamental document such as the constitution?
Let us consider three approaches to resolving relative morals:
- Vote off
- Concensus
- Holistic approach
The firs approach above is we have the vote off. One case of the the vote off would perhaps be a city zone meeting. Or perhaps another case of the vote off would be law suit brings the case in a front of a judge who decides, a judge who was previously voted into office.
The second approach to resolving relative morality is consensus where the two home owners case could reach consensus via arbitration. Both home owners could agree to abide by an arbitration agreement determined by a mediator.
The third approach, the holistic approach, is where Irreni solutions are heading. No decision lives in a vacuum of isolation. For example, all things being equal in the two home owner case would could consider factors unrelated to the subject at hand. If, say, home owner one performs 200 hours of community service every year and the second home owner only lives part-time in the city then one holistic approach might be to favor the first home owner because home owner one has higher value to the community. An obvious problem with this holistic approach is wealth is usually the top metric of value in any community whereby the wealthy would always be judged more valued. That's not fair.
The holistic priorities then would necessarily need to be agreed upon by the community as a whole within a community such that all parties were aware of them at all times. Even better would be if a scoring system were continually in place at all times. Call this ones citizenry metric. Where would such data live? In the Device of Life (DOL) of course. Every citizen has incentive to participate in citizenry actions to tip the scales of moral relative decision making.
Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The holistic approach in the previous paragraph was proposed just now would need to go through experimentation. But the idea remains to promote a holistic approach to relative moral resolutions that is scored across the expanse of a cultures moral landscape. The objective is to promote holistic citizenry participation far greater than just paying taxes and voting that we have today. The approach is to promote the entirety of a community's wants as the entire set above and beyond any single want.
Coming back full circle then how should hot button issues such as guns be handled? All in? All out? No. Because all in or all out is about rights and not wants. The Irreni solution is to use a holistic approach. We promote different communities that have overall narratives of the kind of society people in that community want to live in and then give those relative moral communities boundaries. Some communities will have will have guns and some will not. Wants, not rights, are the answer.
For me I'll be in the community where guns are unfettered in entertainment and yet not allowed in reality. That would be my preferred community.
Communities of differing moral standards will spill over into each other where gun communities will exist next to gun-free communities. This is not a problem. This will just be one of the many new frontiers that Irreni World Scale will need to resolve where today a Supreme Court regulating interstate and inter-country commerce has surely failed.
Cheers!
Scale your empathy, scale the world!
Find your tribe!
Be sexy people!
The future is coming!
Innovate at a rapid pace!
Slow speed ahead!
Well come! and well met!
Comments
Post a Comment