I May Not Like It, but I Guess Things Happen that Way

Among my pet peeves, perhaps my strongest aversion is to the concept of fairness.  The notion that fairness exists in our universe is contrary to all available evidence.  If one subscribes to the theory of evolution and natural selection, then the hope of fairness must be immediately abandoned.  Fair is a human construct to excuse inferior performance.  I challenge any reader to provide one example where all parties to a particular circumstance come out even in the natural world.  Consider these questions:

Does the ant consider it fair that the aardvark has a twelve inch tongue?

Does the aardvark consider it fair that the lion can run thirty miles per hour?

Does the lion consider it fair that the Cape buffalo has developed a herd mentality that offers protection for their young?

Does the Cape buffalo consider it fair that the Bushmen have the intelligence to develop tactics and weapons allowing them to hunt prey much larger and stronger than themselves?

The most troubling feature of fairness is that of relativity.  No, this missive is not going to present yet another treatise on the nature of the physical universe.  I know how much you love them; however you’ll just have to wait.  But I digress.

How fair the outcome of any event is judged to be depends solely on the perspective of the observer.  An outcome one party considers quite to their benefit may be held completely unsatisfactory by their competitor.  In any circumstance, where two entities are vying for the same scarce resource (yeah, I know it sounds familiar… you should have been paying more attention to “Economics for Drunkards” posted 3/26/14) one will enjoy some natural advantage over the other.  And that advantage is not a constant!

Consider your high-school years.  If you were paying attention to what was going on around you instead of picking at your pimples, you probably noticed that those girls you were attracted to were being dated by others.  But not all of your successful class mates were cast from the same mold.  Some of the girls you lusted after were hanging on the sculpted arms of the athletes.  Still others were hanging on the words of the grungy, dope-smoking poets.  It made no sense.  The only constant was; you weren’t getting any.  Well take solace brothers, either was I. Now does that seem fair?

A Short (very) Story

Lately, I have been having a spot of trouble with the starter in my Land Cruiser.  It has been rather hit and miss whether the motor spins.  Now those of you who have been following along know that some years ago I swapped out the original Toyota power plant with a lighter, more powerful and easier to maintain Chevy 350 V-8.  When I say “I”, what I mean is I wrote the checks to the highly qualified professional who actually did the work.  I don’t know if he had any kids that went to college, but I certainly contributed generously to their education funds.

If you are a gear head, you know that changing out a Chevy starter motor is a relatively easy task.  I won’t bore you with the details, but easy as it is, it still requires getting on ones knees, slithering under the vehicle on ones back, and getting ones hands dirty.  I am old enough and wealthy enough that I have people for that.  But being of an economic mind set I was trying to milk it until I hit the next service milestone so I could kill multiple avian raptors with one geological missile.  All of this is inconsequential to you but has regenerated a humorous memory from my youth.

From my earliest memories, I have been enamored of motor vehicles and the operation thereof.  As soon as I was able to sit up, I began play driving.  You’ve done it.  You sit in the driver’s position and operate the controls in a manner that replicates what you have seen your parents do.  What with locking steering wheels, electronic controls and societal wrath aimed at those who leave children unattended in a parked vehicle, it’s no wonder children are addicted to video games.  But back in the days of my youth, parents would (perhaps somewhat naively) leave their children sitting in the car while they attended some brief errand.  Whenever I found myself the beneficiary of such circumstances, as soon as my parents were out of sight, I would climb into the front seat and begin my stationary road trip across the country.  Timing when exactly to return to the rear of the cabin was dicey stuff and on one or two occasions my powers of estimation were lacking.  This prompted the lecture regarding the dangers of manipulating the controls of a parked car, which I somehow failed to internalize.

In a previous story, I shared the experience of my paternal Grandmother’s regular visits (see “Size Matters” – posted 7/18/13).  On such occasions, she would drive her Dodge (I was too young to recognize model or year minutia at that age), leaving it parked in front of our house on the street.  Now Grandma loved her only grandchild very much which I interpolated into, “I can get away with anything.”

One day, relying quite heavily on the aforementioned supposition, I climbed into her parked (nobody locked their cars in a residential neighborhood in those days) vehicle and began an imaginary spin around the local streets.  My pseudo driving experience was deep enough to recognize the difference between my Dad’s Buick with an automatic transmission (two pedals) and his beater GMC truck with a manual transmission (three pedals).  But Grandma’s Dodge had a fourth, purpose unidentified, pedal.  “Well,’ I thought, “it must make the car that much faster!”

So taking the only reasonable course of action, I stomped on it.  I immediately regretted my action as the car began to shake and shimmy, seeming to want to lurch forward.  When I removed my foot from the pedal, the universe returned to its tranquil state.  I double checked the ignition switch to assure myself no keys were present.  Nothing.  Cowardice being the very foundation of survival, I opted to end my motoring activity for the day, sneak cravenly back into the house and cast a minimal shadow.

The more aged and sage readers of this missive have already solved the mystery.  But it took me quite a few years of experience before I exorcised the demon of the self-actuating Dodge.

Today, we don’t even use keys to start a car.  The vehicle knows its owner by the proximity of an electronic RF fob.  The door locks click to great us and we activate the vehicle’s power plant with the push of a button.  For those of us who have been driving a bit longer, we actually had to use the key to start the car.  We would insert the key into the ignition lock, turn the key past “on” to “start” to engage the starter motor, then let the key rotate back to “on” once the engine was running.

In Grandma’s Dodge’s day however, automobiles were not equipped with automatic starter switches.  To start the car, one would insert the key into the ignition switch; turn the switch to “on”, then depress the starter pedal on the floor to engage the starter motor.  Once the engine began to run, the operator would release the pedal and the starter motor would return to sleep until once again called upon to perform its most important duty.

For reasons beyond my comprehension, the starter motor was always live, meaning the car’s electrical system did not have to be on to power the starter motor.  Upon depression, the starter would spin.  If activated while the car was in gear, as my Grandma’s Dodge was, the starter motor generated enough horsepower to actually move the car forward.  If the hand brake (that’s what they called the parking brake back in the olden days, kiddies) was applied, the car would lurch and bound as the opposing forces of torque and friction fought it out.

Figuring all of this out as I gained insight and wisdom chased away the notion that the Dodge Brothers’ evil spirits haunted my Grandma’s car.  But to this day, I have never desired to own a Dodge.

Oh, the Land Cruiser?  Well, I don’t know if the starter solenoid has one remaining crank left, but then that’s why I’m a proud member of the Auto Club.

"How Many Guns Do You Have?"

This is a question I am often asked by persons not fully inculcated into the gun culture.  I don’t mind the question but generally refuse to give a direct answer.  I commonly respond with some inane quip that draws an uneasy laugh, “More than I need; less than I want.” or “Not nearly enough!”  Why?  Because the information is essentially meaningless in most contexts.  People don’t really want to know the answer; it will mean nothing to them.  They have no point of comparison and comparison is the only reason to apply a numeric value to anything (my college major was Accounting, in case you were curious).

My standing as an amateur socio-psychologist with absolutely no formal training permits me to assign motives where they may not exist.  And thus I offer that people will search for ways to keep a conversation going because the social contract requires it.  If they are speaking to a subject of which they have no relevant knowledge, they will ask questions that seem appropriate but aren’t.  I know this from firsthand experience as I have done it many times, occasionally prompting a behavior modification slap.  But I digress.

“Beware the man who only has one gun.  He probably knows how to use it!”  I have run across this adage frequently in my years as a shooter.  Google search results offer the Buckeye Firearms Association newsletter which attributes it to Clint Smith of Thunder Ranch.  I do not know the Buckeye Firearms Association.  I do not know Mr. Smith (but what a great name for a shooter, huh?).  But I have heard of Thunder Ranch so it suggests some credibility.  I will not aver to the site’s accuracy. Whether true or not, the number of guns owned by any individual is an indication of nothing else but the wealth one has which can be earmarked for the acquisition of firearms.

So once again, we stand upon the precipice of a discussion of economic theory.  You can relax.  I am not going to lead you into the abyss… this week.

People own guns for a variety of reasons.  You can probably guess most of them; self-defense, professional need (e.g., Peace Officers), sporting purposes, collecting, resisting tyranny, etc.  Many gun owners I have known fit into more than one category.  The motivation, as long as it is legal, is unimportant.  The mere fact that there are many reasons explains why there is such a large per-capita firearm ownership rate in this country.

The key to understanding the true relationship between a man (or woman) and their gun(s) in not how many they possess but how well they shoot.

   

I was not brought up in the gun culture.  My first experience with firearms was as an eighteen-year-old college student enrolled in Criminology classes.  My first purchase had to be straw-manned by my father as California requires a handgun purchaser be twenty-one.  Back in those days, most department stores that offered a sporting goods department sold guns.  That’s how I took ownership of my first gun, a Smith & Wesson Model 28 revolver.  I will not bore those among you uninterested in firearms with esoterica; those who know guns already have all the information they need.

My entrance into law enforcement prompted the need for a supplemental purchase.  My revolver was too large for carry as an off-duty concealed weapon (a requirement for peace officers).  I learned, from my exposure to the testosterone fueled world of the San Diego County Sheriff’s Deputy, that the only tool suitable was Colt’s .45 ACP automatic pistol.  I purchased one; nickel plated of course.  I had achieved the age of majority by this time and didn’t need my daddy’s help.  I had launched my career as a gun collector.

Over the years I have grown my arsenal to a respectable number.  Some of my acquisitions have been to fill a tactical niche.  Still others were guns of historical significance.  I added rifles and shotguns to my inventory over the years.  I have guns I don’t need and guns I couldn’t live without.  I have been fortunate enough in my personal finances that the limiting factor in number is related more to the size of my gun safe than my bank balance.

The pride of ownership, of course, is balanced with the joy of shooting.  There is a great deal of satisfaction in mastering any tool.  And basically firearms are just tools. Any craftsman will tell you that an artisan is only as good as his mastery of the tools of trade.  Proficiency is undeniably a function of the time one spends in plying his trade.  Henny Youngman (look it up, youngsters) got it right: “I asked the cab driver, ‘Do you know how to get to Carnegie Hall?’ He said, ‘Practice, practice, practice!’”  

And that highlights the point of this post.  The number of hours I practice is far more important than the number of guns I own.  If I shoot my Winchester 1886 .45-70 rifle once in two years, I am not going to achieve the level of proficiency I have with my Colt's Combat Commander pistol, which I shoot several times per month.  But then I am far more likely to have to defend myself against an urban miscreant than I am to shoot a buffalo.

The answer; I shoot a lot!

Economics for Drunkards Too

I published Economics for Drunkards back on March 26 of this year and having  not seen obituary notices referencing sheer boredom as cause of death or fantastical suicide notes, I will assume the pearls of wisdom secreted within were well received, or at least so confusing as to deny the reader any opportunity for pretended offense.  To recap briefly, the salient point of said missive was that as a rational consumer, the human being will place a diminishing utility (value) for each additional unit of any consumable once the basic need is met.  This is an offshoot of the law of diminishing returns.  Someday I must experiment with the law of expanding returns, but as of yet have not stumbled across any textual reference there to.

You may recall, or at least you would if you’d read Economics for Drunkards sober, that we debunked the currently popular hypotheses concerning predictable behavior by the rational consumer when alcoholic beverages were added to his shopping basket.

“Aha!” you say, “Now you are trying to confuse the elemental assumptions by inserting a new player, the Street Person.  What gives, Dale?”

No, no, no; I am not engaging in chicanery here.  In the world of the economics academician, the “shopping basket” is a standardized collection of goods representative of likely sustenance purchases by which the economist can measure trends of human behavior in an environment of changing prices.  Although I can understand your momentary confusion as there generally exists some tawdry correlation between intoxicants and bums.  But I digress.

The lesson for today focuses on the addition of a second consuming entity to the environment, a wife (husband, mate, life-partner, shack-up… we are broad minded here at The Steel Trap School of Economics and Distillery Sciences).  Suddenly, the variables grow to seemingly infinite proportion.  When once, the rational consumer was faced with simple choices, e.g. domestic beer vs. imported, tequila vs. scotch, now he must consider the needs of said basket-mate (I believe I have coined a new term here) in the selection of inebriants.

Hypothetically, we are positing that the introduction of domestic commitment stretches the universe of potent potables to the point where a cross reference of preferred libation to personality type will much aid the prospective romantic dallier in identifying a suitable partner.

Domestic beer – staid, stable and predictable, up to and including the occasional spate of domestic violence.

Imported beer – much like the domestic beer drinker but with tendencies toward aloofness and a fondness for pretzels.

Light beer – prone to waste life away while engaging in the tribal ritual of communal televised sporting event viewing, substitute pork rinds for pretzels.  Offers the female optimal opportunities for shopping, for either the latest fashions or a more attentive mate.

Tequila – indicates a preference for the wild life.  Works to live, lives to party.  Prone to nap in the afternoon.

Gin – Equipped at the factory with a stick firmly imbedded within ones posterior.  Favors tradition over adventure, likely to refer to wait staff as wogs, offending same.

Bourbon – An All-American sense of superiority.  Demonstrates a refined taste.  Likely to engage in combat-de-arms over perceived slurs.

Straight Whiskey – An All-American sense of inferiority.  Wardrobe most probably acquired during high-school years.  Likely to engage in combat-de-arms over a dropped hat.  Preferred coif, mullet.

Vodka – Self-perceived sophisticate.  Generally-perceived pretender.  Unafraid (or unaware of the implications) to publicly order an otherwise flavorless beverage that has been enhanced with fruit extract.  Most likely to achieve full-blown alcoholism.

Scotch – Inoperative taste buds. Consistent lack of taste in all manner of arts and aesthetics.

Brandy (Cognac) – Imperious. Likely to put the best face on the ugliest of circumstances. Or, likely to put the ugliest face on the best of circumstances.  Probable Napoleonic complex.

Wine – Primped.  Prefers quantity over quality.  In no particular hurry, to get anywhere.

Champagne – see “Wine”, add bubbles, promiscuity, confetti.

Mixed Drinks – Politically liberal, economically confused.  

Forgotten Wisdom

I promised at the outset of this endeavor to avoid as much as possible controversies political.  And I hope that this week’s offering does not violate that stand.  But I am much troubled as of late by the state of the debate regarding the proper role of government in our country.  My intent with this missive is not to promote one political philosophy or agenda.  Rather, I want to look to the source philosophy and template intended to illuminate our path to individual freedom.  It is very important that the reader fully comprehend the content of the previous sentence.  The key word, in case you missed it, is individual.

If you read the founding fathers, you will learn that the revolution was not per se against the nation of England or the empire of the United Kingdom. It was against the tyranny of non-representative government.  The American revolutionaries were not about forming a new society.  They were happy with the culture and tradition from whence they came.  What drove them to revolt was the heavy hand of government control.  They petitioned King George III for the same rights granted residents of the home isle.  It was only when these were denied that they moved to create a separate state.  And the foundation of that state was the aforementioned individual liberty. This principle is woven into the language of our founding documents:  The Declaration of Independence, in which the Continental Congress cast off the yoke of absentee government; and the Constitution of the United States of America, the foundation of which is the limitation of governmental powers in favor of citizens’ natural rights.

 But alas, in today’s media coverage, it seems all thought turns to party political advantage.  When laws are proposed that seemingly violate constitutional restraint, the debate does not turn to the original intent but instead a thesis on the merits of the debated legislation.  This is heresy. The first and last concern for any proposed grant of additional government power should always be conformance to constitutional limits.

There is a nonsensical debate couched in the language “living or dead” status as pertains to the state of the Constitution.  Those who wish to expand the reach of government call the Constitution a living document and those who labor to restrain it as dead.  Let’s put this notion to bed right now.  The Constitution is a living document because it is the supreme law of the land and the test against which all subordinate legislation is assessed.  It is living because there is a mechanism for change when necessary.  In their wisdom and understanding of the passions of man however, the Constitutional Convention designed the amendment process to be difficult, forestalling capricious and self-serving change.

I offer to the reader some bits of wisdom that taken at face value illuminate the path by which we should be governing our nation:

“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force.  Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master". – George Washington

“A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.  This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circlue of our felicities.” – Thomas Jefferson

“Power always thinks… that it is doing God’s service when it is violating all his laws.” – John Adams

“If we can but prevent the government from wasting the labours of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy.” – Thomas Jefferson

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin

“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” – George Washington

“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.” – John Adams

“Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected.  No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.” – James Madison

“Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” – Thomas Jefferson

“To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.” – George Washington

“Property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty.” – John Adams

“The U.S. Constitution doesn’t guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it.  You have to catch up with it yourself.” – Benjamin Franklin

“The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.” – George Washington

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. – Thomas Jefferson.

“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” – Thomas Jefferson

“There is no maxim, in my opinion, which is more liable to be misapplied, and which, therefore, more needs elucidation, than the current one, that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong.” – James Madison

“Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.” – Thomas Jefferson

 “It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it.” – George Washington

 “Fear is the foundation of most governments.” – John Adams

 “I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion about the means.  I think the best way of doing good to the poor is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.” – Benjamin Franklin

 “The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” – James Madison

“I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” – James Madison