“To know who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize”

I see that quote from time to time. It’s falsely attributed to Voltaire, as I understand, but … I don’t care who came up with it. It’s an interesting perspective on who has power in a culture. E.g., if you can’t criticize the Nazis, or the church, or left-handed people, then — by definition — that group is controlling speech. That’s not good.

The quote came to mind when I read this.

‘Fundamentally Unfair’: Female Athletes ‘Terrified’ to Rebuff Transgenders, so Hall of Fame Swimmer Speaks Out

What’s to be done about this?

The First Amendment proscribes the government from limiting speech, but the government isn’t the culprit here. Rather, a tiny minority of activists are controlling the speech of the rest of the country. Assuming that we value free speech in general, and not simply government assaults on free speech, we need to address this.

How did we get to such a place, and how do we stop it?

While there are lots of competing factors, I think the most obvious villain here is simple cowardice. It’s very much like the parental cowardice that allows a 2-year old to run the home. It’s an unwillingness to say no when threatened with a temper tantrum.

It’s come to the point that people say things they know are not true simply to avoid a temper tantrum from the activists. That is a very disturbing thing.

We stop it by refusing to allow bullies to control the conversation — in any place at any time.

But we don’t only have to stop it, we have to heal it, and I think the answer there is a proper education, where people are required to understand and even defend a point of view they don’t like.

I’ve never been on a debating team, but I’ve heard that it’s common for people to be assigned a position to defend — irrespective of whether they agree with that position.

That should be part of our educational process.

I’ve never bothered recycling plastic

I’ve always thought it was a huge waste of time, and the only purpose was “raising consciousness.”

This article summarizes many of the things I’ve read over the years: Plastic Recycling Doesn’t Work and Will Never Work

One thing the article misses is that much of that “recycled” plastic we and others ship to Asia ends up in the ocean. It would be far better in a landfill.

Recycling makes sense for computer parts, used oil, and a few other things. But recycling glass and plastic is just a waste of time and effort.

Einstein and Davos

While on vacation last week I was reading some collected essays by Einstein. In one, he bemoans the lack of a common intellectual culture.

As late as the seventeenth century the savants and artists of all Europe were so closely united by the bond of a common ideal that cooperation between them was scarcely affected by political events. This unity was further strengthened by the general use of the Latin language.

Today we look back at this state of affairs as at a lost paradise. The passions of nationalism have destroyed this community of the intellect, and the Latin language which once united the whole world is dead. The men of learning have become representatives of the most extreme national traditions and lost their sense of an intellectual commonwealth.

Nowadays we are faced with the dismaying fact that the politicians, the practical men of affairs, have become the exponents of international ideas. It is they who have created the League of Nations.

Klaus Schwab is the head of the World Economic Forum, which is the group that meets in Davos. He recently said this.

The future is not just happening. The future is built by us, by a powerful community as you here in this room. We have the means to improve the state of the world. But two conditions are necessary. The first one is that we act all as stakeholders of larger communities, that we serve not only self-interest but we serve the community. That’s what we call stakeholder responsibility. And second, that we collaborate.

When I read Einstein talking about a lost international community of intellectuals, I feel sad. When I read Schwab trying to create a powerful international community to run the world, I feel threatened.

Here’s how Ben Shapiro characterized Schwab’s comments.

This is the call to action for elitists the world over. They appoint themselves the representatives of global interests — without elections, without accountability — and then create mechanisms of national and international order to control citizens over whom they claim to preside.

It’s one thing to have an international community of intellectuals who meet and think and propose. It’s another to have an international group that meets and thinks and imposes. And I think the fear Shapiro is expressing — and I’m feeling — is that the Davos people are more in that latter camp.

Intellectuals should be thinking about big problems. But they should never be given the power to implement their ideas, because ideas from intellectuals are often ridiculously impractical.

Somehow or other, the confusing, disjointed mess of having to convince people of an idea through some sort of democratic process is more likely to give us better solutions than a top-down system run by geniuses.

Why does someone need Call of Duty?

I was listening to some coverage of the mass shooting in Texas (Lord have mercy), and I was thinking of all the predictable things that will be said. Such as “Why does someone need an assault rifle?”

Okay. It’s a fair question. It’s not as stupid as asking something like “Why does someone need a blue pen, when a black one will do just fine?” because blue pens don’t cause anyone any harm. The ugly truth is that so-called “assault rifles” are associated with very bad things, so it’s legit to ask if people should be allowed to have them.

But the equation is not as simple as “bad guy with an assault rifle can do horrible things. If you take away the assault rifle, he can’t do horrible things.” Bad guys can find other ways to do bad things. A couple of hand guns would have been just as effective. Or other long guns that are just as deadly as an AR-15, but don’t look as military-ish.

Also, there are tons of so-called “assault rifles” in the country, and the vast majority of them are not used to do horrible things. So we need to dig a little deeper.

What are the common threads among mass shooters?

What if we find out that all of them play Call of Duty? Should we outlaw Call of Duty?

What if we find out that all of them didn’t grow up with a father in the home? Should we have surveillance on every kid who grew up without a father?

What if someone, somewhere, thought they should be in a mental hospital? Should we allow anyone with suspicion to put someone else in a mental hospital?

No is the obvious answer to all these questions, but they follow the same basic logic as “get rid of all assault weapons” — which is, we should take away the rights of everyone in a certain class, or group, to prevent the horrible crimes of a few people in that group.

It’s somewhat like “some people get drunk in the park, therefore no one can have any alcohol in the park.”

I disagree with those sorts of laws. If you don’t want drunkenness, arrest drunks. Don’t tell me I can’t have a beer with my lunch.

Is it possible we should adjust the rules on who should be able to buy what weapons? Of course. There is an almost zero probability that we have that perfectly right.

But there is also an almost zero probability that tweaking the gun laws is going to prevent this sort of problem.

The problem of mass shooters is much deeper and more troublesome than simply limiting the size of magazines, or outlawing guns because they look scary. It has much more to do with our messed up policies about dealing with mental health. We have gone too far in the direction of protecting individual liberties, and it’s very difficult to get troubled people the care they need.

But I would recommend that when someone asks, “Who needs an assault rifle?” you try responding with “Who needs to play ‘Call of Duty’?” and see what happens.