Why The Elevated Status of Sport Hunting?

I’ve mostly stayed silent on the gun debate that reignited because I didn’t feel I had that much to say that others weren’t already saying. And the sheer amount of misleading, obviously cherry-picked statistics from both sides just gave me too much of a headache. I had to tune it out.

But there is something disturbing and it illustrates a dark manifestation of the golden mean fallacy – giving some gun owners a preference over others. Many people in the camp who don’t see self-defense as a valid reason to own a gun say they are okay with sport hunting. Why? So the right to kill innocent wildlife for fun is more important than the right to your life? And make no mistake about it – if people are using guns for self-defense, hunters will continue to do so (prison is better than death, especially death of your family) and enjoy the exclusive privilege. If guns are dangerous to have in the house, it having been purchased for the purpose of hunting doesn’t change that.

More disturbing is that it is almost always sport hunting and not subsistence hunting that is mentioned. Subsistence hunting is protecting one’s existence with a gun every bit as much as self-defense is. A hobby is sacrosanct, but survival isn’t. Something done with leisure time (which those on the top have more of) is favored over what is often a necessity for those on the bottom, who often live where 911 is a running joke. This is why, while I don’t agree with people who don’t want anyone, not even cops, to have guns, I have much more respect for their position than the haphazard positions that assume certain segments of society are inherently more trustworthy than others.

I don’t want to suggest that there aren’t positions intermediate between “no guns for anyone” and “more guns” that make more sense than either. It’s just that most of the ones advanced are more ridiculous than either alone, because they are “guns for me, not for thee” positions. They place some people on a pedestal, like cops, hunters and people who can afford security guards.

Obama Says Things That Are True

It seems many political disagreements on the internet are about style, rather than substance and who am I to buck the trend? Elizabeth Warren caused a lot of knee jerk reaction with her offhand remark on why no one got where they are on their own. But for a fresh round of teeth-grinding, here Obama goes saying things that are true:

…look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.  You didn’t get there on your own.  I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.  There are a lot of smart people out there.  It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.  Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.  (Applause.)

Nothing he’s saying here is controversial. I, too, am struck by those hypothetical idiots who think that we live in some sort of perfect meritocracy where humans don’t interact with other humans. If I could just find one of those people, I’d pound so much sense into them…

Look (there I go talking like Obama), we don’t have a meritocracy and it’s just as well. It’s not like it’s morally any different for someone to succeed because of the parents and location they were born with or for someone to succeed because of the intelligence they were born with. None of us deserve what we have. I benefited from things invented ages ago. My industry benefits from the hollowed out corpses of failed startups that left behind good technology. And that’s why… why what? Here Obama goes conflating society and the state:

     If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.  There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.  Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.  Somebody invested in roads and bridges.  If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that.  Somebody else made that happen.  The Internet didn’t get invented on its own.  Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

Here is how these arguments go: you have what you have because [some thing that people in your life did] and/or [some thing that people you've never met did] and/or [some thing the government did], therefore… [insert pet conclusion]. All these different things are lumped together so your patriotic duty to pay taxes and your duty to give back to society are one in the same.

But it’s not like we couldn’t have roads or bridges without government. More importantly, it’s not like when your parents or your friends help you with your business that’s really government doing it. It’s like the state is Jesus. It forgave your sins… even though your sins weren’t against it in the first place.

Obama is arguing for slightly higher taxes on some against those who want slightly lower taxes overall. Both sides in question agree on some taxes and neither side has a magic formula to determine how much. And neither do I. And that’s the thing. What he’s presenting isn’t purely substance, it’s largely style. And here I am responding in kind.