I’m going to explain some of my views about two issues, views that people often have difficulty understanding or sympathizing with. Leftists have trouble with one issue; rightists have trouble with the other. By explaining my views on both issues, I’m going to make them easier for both sides to understand. If you’re left-wing, start with section I, then continue to II. If you’re right-wing, start with section II, then I.
.
I. Terrorism
a. I think most of the government’s policy on terrorism (going to war, torturing terror suspects, etc.) is bad. I don’t know *for sure* that it doesn’t work, but I think (1) it violates rights, (2) we don’t have compelling enough evidence that it works, and (3) there are plausible arguments that it is even counterproductive. (Some people might be motivated to commit terrorism *by* the government’s anti-terror policies.) (4) We're creating the sort of precedents that transform a free country to an unfree one over time. (1)-(4) together make the policy unjustified.
b. This does not show that I don’t care about terrorism, or that I’m unpatriotic, or that I don’t mind people being blown up. And I think that anyone who suggests these things is Behaving Very Badly. Suggestions like that should be immediately dismissed with disdain in a civilized culture.
c. If a politician agrees with me on (a), the most likely explanation is that this politician is persuaded by the same sort of reasons I am. The explanation is not that the politician was paid off by someone, that he’s a Muslim, that he’s unpatriotic, etc. I think you should accept this even if you think I’m mistaken on (a). And I think someone who suggests otherwise is, again, Behaving Very Badly.
d. The threat of terrorism is vastly overblown. In the last 50 years or so, about 3,300 Americans were murdered by terrorists, while about 800,000 were murdered by non-terrorists. We should stop freaking out about a relatively tiny risk.
e. If a new terrorist attack occurs somewhere tomorrow, I will not change my position on (a). It won’t change the relevant evidence, and I don’t form beliefs based on emotion. I also won’t call any politicians dogmatic, unpatriotic, uncaring, or otherwise bad if they, too, stick to their position on (a) after a new terror attack.
f. If Republicans seize on the new terror attack as an opportunity to push through new anti-terror policies that otherwise wouldn’t get passed, I now believe, in advance, that the new terror policies will almost certainly be ill-considered and bad.
g. By the way, I think the media should stop reporting terrorist attacks, since this motivates terrorists to perform such attacks: they want to be covered in the media so they can cause fear. Also, people who are prone to violence to begin with are more likely to think about doing a terror attack, and to perceive it as a thing that people do, as more such attacks are shown and discussed on the news.
.
II. Guns
a. I think most gun control policies (restrictions on carrying concealed guns, gun free zones, etc.) are bad. I don’t know *for sure* that they don’t work, but I think (1) they violate rights, (2) we don’t have compelling enough evidence that they work, and (3) there are plausible arguments that they are even counterproductive. (Some people might be deterred from committing crime by the knowledge that ordinary citizens may be armed.) (4) We're creating the sort of precedents that transform a free country to an unfree one over time. (1)-(4) together make the policy unjustified.
b. This does not show that I don’t care about children, or that I don’t mind people being shot. And I think that anyone who suggests these things is Behaving Very Badly. Suggestions like that should be immediately dismissed with disdain in a civilized culture.
c. If a politician agrees with me on (a), the most likely explanation is that this politician is persuaded by the same sort of reasons I am. The explanation is not that the politician was paid off by someone, that he’s callous, that he’s clueless, etc. I think you should accept this even if you think I’m mistaken on (a). And I think someone who suggests otherwise is, again, Behaving Very Badly.
d. The threat of mass shootings is vastly overblown. The U.S. murder rate is about 4.9 per 100,000 population per year. The comparable *mass shooting* death rate is about 0.002. We should stop freaking out about a relatively tiny risk.
e. If a new mass shooting occurs tomorrow, I will not change my position on (a). It won’t change the relevant evidence, and I don’t form beliefs based on emotion. I also won’t call any politicians dogmatic, unpatriotic, uncaring, or otherwise bad if they, too, stick to their guns (pun intended) on (a) after a new shooting.
f. If Democrats seize on the new shooting as an opportunity to push through new anti-gun policies that otherwise wouldn’t get passed, I now believe, in advance, that the new gun policies will almost certainly be ill-considered and bad.
g. I think the media should stop reporting mass shootings, since this motivates shooters to perform such attacks: they want to be covered in the media so they can be famous. Also, people who are prone to violence to begin with are more likely to think about doing a mass shooting, and to perceive it as a thing that people do, as more such attacks are shown and discussed on the news.
.
III. How Ideologues React
When I say these things, leftists applaud (I) but indignantly protest or ridicule (II). Rightists applaud (II) but protest (I). If you’re inclined toward one of these reactions, please consider the possibility that you’re just being a goddamned ideologue, and stop it.
We might say "partisan" instead of "ideologue"
Bryan Caplan comments:
Nice symmetry, though it's worth pointing out that the collateral damage of the War on Terror is many times larger than the collateral damage of gun control.
