Sociology Explains Nothing

A recent article posted on The Star takes issue with Stephen Harper’s tendency to dismiss sociological explanations for crimes. For example, in response to the murder of Tina Fontaine, Harper argued that her death was an isolated incident and that the murder was not part of a sociological phenomenon. Harper also made similar comments in response to the attempted bombing of a VIA train last year. The journalists at The Star take issue with this attitude because supposedly it is an “ideological attempt to prevent Canadian society from being able to identify and tackle its structural injustices.” While I can’t defend everything Harper has done or said, I feel his objective approach to this crime is commendable, especially since it doesn’t capitulate to the incessant whining of social justice warriors.

How does one distinguish between an isolated incident and a structural phenomenon? The Star article claims that structural injustices differ from individual crimes in that crimes by individuals can be traced back to a single person(s), whereas structural injustices are committed by society at large. If that is the case, I fail to see how Ms. Fontaine’s murder should be regarded as the latter rather than the former. Considering that we don’t even know who the murderer is yet, it doesn’t make sense to attribute his/her motivations to racism, as that is not likely the case. 

Most of what is deemed as structural injustices are no more than statistical disparities between one group and another. For instance, the article implies that the difference between the murder rate of aboriginal Canadian women and non-aboriginal women is indicative of structural racism. Leave it to the crazy SJW’s to automatically claim this to be the result of racism or sexism. However, differences in the murder rate between one group and another cannot by itself reveal structural discrimination. Tina Fontaine was a runaway teenager. Seeing as though the vast majority of child abductions happen to runaway children[1], I would venture to say that Ms. Fontaine’s status as a runaway put her at far greater risk of being murdered than being aboriginal.  There are often underlying differences between the groups (such as economics, cultural values, level of education, etc.) that lead to such statistical disparities. In Canada, men are far more likely to be the victims of aggravated assault and murder than women[2]; however, few SJW’s would suggest this statistical disparity to be the result of sexism or racism since it does not fit in with their preconceived narrative—namely that women and minorities are oppressed whereas white men never are. There is no simple, convenient explanation for why men are murdered far more often than women, or why aboriginal women are murdered more than white women, but to simply dismiss this as sexism or racism clearly ignores all the nuances and complexities of human interactions. However, when the statistical disparities do reflect the world view of the SJW’s, then they will be the first to cry racism or sexism.

I don’t have anything against the academic discipline of sociology per se, but we all know that when The Star talks about “structural injustices”, what they really mean is finding a way to blame everything on either sexism, racism, capitalism, or all the above—a practice that is far removed from anything resembling the scientific method. It should be remembered that Tina Fontaine wasn’t murdered by society, she was murdered by an individual person, whose motivations for doing so were solely his own. The reason why I believe the attitude conveyed by The Star is toxic is because it diverts the responsibility of Ms. Fontaine’s murder away from the individual who committed it and imposes it collectively on society. Since Ms. Fontaine’s murder was the result of structural racism according to these people, it is society that needs to atone for it. For Stephen Harper to acknowledge these “structural injustices” would mean effectively signing a blank check away to any social justice warrior or special-interest groups who claims to have the answers. It’s funny that the solution to rectifying so-called structural injustices typically involves the redistribution of wealth in some form or another.

When Margaret Thatcher said that “there is no such thing as society”, she meant that there is no entity called “society” that may speak, feel, think, or act on anyone’s behalf. Society is an abstract concept referring to the various relationships between individuals, and to speak of society apart from individuals is to remove all humanity from the discussion.  It may be tempting to blame society for a heinous crime like the murder of Tina Fontaine when there is no suspect to point the finger at yet. However, trying to impose the guilt of one individual upon an entire collective is an absurd accusation. Stephen Harper is demonstrating a level-headed approach to such a heinous crime instead of resorting to knee-jerk emotional reactions.

---

[1] http://www.freerangekids.com/crime-statistics/

[2] http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85f0033m/2010024/t001-eng.htm

Doing Away with Door-to-Door Mail Service

Last year, Canada Post announced that it would be phasing out door-to-door delivery for many communities across Canada. In addition to the elimination of door-to-door delivery, the price of stamps has also increased to 85 cents up from 63 cents as an effort to curd loses of $104 million dollars last year. Canada Post has said that replacing door-to-door delivery with community mailboxes will have the largest impact on the $1-billion Canada Post deficit. The Transportation Minister Lisa Raitt said that Canada Post is “modernizing its business and aligning postal services with the choices of Canadians.”[1]

As technology improves the way we communicate, the volume of written letters continues to decline. The decline in the volume of transaction mail over the past decade can be attributed directly to the emergence of the internet. The web has made writing letters all but obsolete, since sending email is not only free and simple, but one doesn’t pay for the cost of shipping and postage. Written letters are quickly going the way of the typewriter, the horse-drawn carriage, and the flintlock pistol. Therefore, if Canada Post is going to remain a viable and sustainable business in the decades to come, it needs to adapt to the march of technology.

However, many people in my community still do not recognize the need for doing away with door-to-door delivery. Almost every second household on my street brandishes a lawn sign lauding their support for maintaining this service. A petition on Change.org even has over 150, 000 signatures from those who wish to keep door-to-door delivery. Many people feel very strongly about this issue, even though the reasons they give for why door-to-door delivery should be maintained are not very persuasive.

The petition on change.org has the following to say,

“My grandfather, god rest his soul, was a WW2 veteran and became a mailman. They take their work very seriously otherwise they would not brave the weather. My current mail carrier is also proud of the service she provides for the community. Why change something that is working well for communities across Canada?”

There are bound to be people who have an emotional attachment to the notion of home mail delivery, but warm sentiments alone do not generate revenue. It would be just as absurd as somebody suggesting that Blockbuster Video should stay in business and operate at a loss just because they have an emotional attachment to their big blue store signs. It seems that those opposed to ending door-to door delivery want to have their cake and eat it too. They want Canada Post to continue the service despite the fact that they do not contribute to demand by purchasing stamps or writing letters. If one is truly adamant about maintaining door-to-door delivery, the most sensible way of having their voice heard is by actually writing letters. Show Canada Post that there is in fact a demand for mail delivery. Voting with your wallet is more effective than displaying signs on your lawn or signing some petition that will likely just be ignored.

              However, there will probably not be a renaissance of letter-writing anytime in the foreseeable future. The internet is just too efficient a means of communication that snail mail is hard-pressed to compete with it. I don’t think the majority of people are going to spend money on stamps that they don’t have to just for the sake of continuing door-to-door mail service. Being a Crown Corporation, I doubt Canada Post would be making these changes unless they were absolutely necessary. Instead of feeling nostalgic about the death of an obsolete means of communication, we should be celebrating the birth of a new one.

---

[1] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/canada-post-to-phase-out-urban-home-mail-delivery-1.2459618

Why Salon.com is Wrong About ReservationHop

             

                It seems like the writers over at Salon.com are desperate for something to whine and complain about. This article, entitled the 1 Percent’s Loathsome Libertarian Scheme: Why We Despise the New Scalping Economy, takes issue with a new application called ReservationHop which makes reservations at restaurants and then auctions them off to the highest bidder. According to the author of the article, Andrew Leonard, this application discriminates against poor people and creates “market-based class stratification”. Although I fail to see how ReservationHop is uniquely libertarian, (as suggested in the article title) I believe it provides a useful service that will generally make booking reservations more efficient. Not only is this application a useful tool in that respect, but a portion of the revenue being made is given to the restaurants themselves. There’s really nothing at all for Salon.com to complain about. Regardless, they found a way to demonize the creators of this application. therefore, I feel like I should defend them.

Leonard writes,

“I am pretty sure I don’t want to live in a society where every possible interaction with my fellow human being is up for auction at the right price point.”

            Nor will you. This is just a slippery slope fallacy. Applications such as ReservationHop are fulfilling an obvious need by selling sought-after restaurant reservations to those who are willing to pay for them. It makes sense that some restaurants apply the pricing system for reservations if they are very popular. Many popular restaurants do not have available space for everyone who wishes to eat there—especially at peak hours. Since there is a greater demand for reservations than restaurants are able to supply, those who can afford to should have the option of purchasing their reservations. This is just an efficient way of allocating the few available tables to those who want them the most. This dystopian nightmare Leonard tries to portray where “every possible interaction with your fellow human beings is up for auction” is nonsense. He then writes,

“Even when they are solving a problem, there’s a whiff of parasitism. What was once clear becomes muddy. When the answer to the question of why we can’t find a reservation available at our favourite restaurant is because someone unaffiliated with the restaurant has figured out a way to profit from our demand that just feels yucky.”

            Ever notice that what a normal person would consider rational and innovative behaviour, socialists call parasitism? That’s probably why socialist utopias throughout history have been so prosperous in comparison to those wicked capitalists, right guys?

            The arguments Salon.com presents against ReservationHop come crumbling down once they are exposed to the light of scrutiny. Chances are, the reservations being auctioned off on ReservationHop are only at the most expensive, high-status restaurants—the kinds of places you have to bribe the doorman just to get into. I doubt that any sane person would bother to sell, let alone purchase fake reservations at a Denny’s, McDonalds, or Pizza Hut. It just wouldn’t make sense to auction off reservations unless the restaurant in question was near-impossible to get into otherwise. The vast majority of restaurants are not packed on a regular basis so I highly doubt that ReservationHop will have any noticeable impact on the way most people make reservations. Mr. Leonard will still be able to eat at his favourite restaurant as easily as before.

            The great thing about ReservationHop and other applications like it is that they tap into a previously unsatisfied demand. The creator of these applications clearly saw something that was inefficient with the way restaurants took reservations, so he created a service that fixed it. Not only does ReservationHop solve the problem of getting reservations at sought-after restaurants, but it generates revenue and even shares its profits with the restaurants themselves. It’s win-win scenario for everyone. If this is what liberals call “parasitism” then power to the parasites!

“What’s happening with the new scalping apps is not democratization. It’s the exact opposite—it’s market-based class stratification.”

            Horseshit. ReservationHop is no more “class stratification” than a grocery store that charges an extra nickel for plastic bags. I think it’s fair to say that if a poor person can’t afford to spend $6 for a reservation, they probably should not be eating at restaurants in the first place. When you live in a world with a scarce amount of resources, you should expect to compete with others for those resources. Reservations of course are no exception. Even if applications such as ReservationHop did not exist, we would still expect to see people competing for reservations at fancy restaurants. For instance, if you wanted to make a reservation at some place, you would have to phone them days, or even weeks in advance to ensure you get the table you want at the time you want. Even then, there was no guarantee that you would get the reservation you wanted since someone else could have made the very same reservation before you. Now, instead of wasting one’s time and energy fighting for a reservation, one can simply pay a small fee and your reservation is guaranteed. As you can see, people have competed for reservations before, ReservationHop just found a way to allocate them efficiently.

           

Leave it to the misguided and unpleasant writers over at Salon.com to find fault with something that will generally benefit people. Then again, if anything gives individuals more free choice, it is heresy in the eyes of collectivists. I think this application is a great idea and I will be interested to hear of any future developments on it.

            

Labour Unions Kill a Wal-Mart

Back in April 2005, workers at a Wal-Mart in Jonquiere, Quebec voted to join a labour union. In response, Wal-Mart closed down the store. Last week, The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that in doing so, Wal-Mart violated Quebec’s labour laws, and the employees who lost their jobs as a result of the closing are now entitled to receive financial compensation. Wal-Mart’s anti-union policies have angered many people throughout the years and the incident in Jonquiere was also featured in the documentary WALMART: The High Cost of Low Price. It seems that many people have this a priori assumption that Wal-Mart is evil and anything it does is utterly contemptible. Proponents of labour unions argue that workers cannot survive on a minimum wage and that in order to receive adequate wages, they need the representation of labour unions. The fact that Wal-Mart forbids employees to unionize, they argue, is indicative of the company’s greed and contempt for its workers.

I do not believe that Wal-Mart exploits its employees or harms poor communities. Due to their low prices, poor people can afford to buy more goods at Wal-Mart than they could at a less competitive store. Even if someone earns minimum wage, they can still afford to feed and clothe themselves thanks to the cheap supply of goods available at Wal-Mart. As a result of this cheap supply of goods, the standard of living in poor communities is greatly improved. The reason Wal-Mart can afford to keep their prices so low is because their business model is so austere and efficient—they cut corners wherever they can. Wal-Mart executives don’t ride around in gold-plated limousines; they fly coach and share hotel rooms with colleagues. The Wal-Mart headquarters isn’t a palace; it’s just a drab, normal-looking building.[1] This austerity extends to all Wal-Mart employees, which is why the company frowns upon unions and ostentatious benefits. Wal-Mart maintains its low prices because they pay their employees the wages that they do. If unionization, as in the Jonquiere case, would entail an increase in wages, then the Wal-Mart business model would no longer be viable to earn a profit. If the business model is not viable then the store must close. That’s Business 101. With these considerations in mind, one can see that Wal-Mart actually benefits poor communities—it’s labour unions that harm them.

The classic mantra from the left is that all corporations are greedy and wicked and they would pay their employees in pennies if the heroic labour unions weren’t there to stand up to them. Those who make such accusations not only betray their ignorance of basic supply and demand, but also their seething contempt for the rich. Labour unions are entirely self-serving organizations who benefit their own members at the expense of everyone else, and whose sole purpose is to siphon off wealth from one beneficiary to another. For example, if the US Airline Pilots Association bargains for a higher wage, then the cost will be passed onto the public through an increase of airplane ticket prices. Union leaders might claim that they are bargaining for wages at the expense of profits, but this is not true. Corporate profits are just not big enough. After taxes, corporate profits only amount to less than six percent of the total national income, whereas over eighty percent of total national income goes to pay for wages, salaries, and fringe benefits.[2]  Therefore, the cost of any benefits gained through union bargaining are almost always passed on to consumers. Since Wal-Mart prizes its ability to sell goods cheaply, one can see how unionization of their employees would not be in their best interest.

Unions also slow job creation. As labour unions bargain for higher wages and benefits, the cost for the business to hire new employees becomes more expensive. This means that a business will hire fewer employees and many people who are looking for work in that sector will be unable to find a job. Examples of this can be seen throughout history. In the 1920s, the United Mine Workers of America, led by John L. Lewis secured wages for its workers that were unprecedented at that time; as a result, the price of coal skyrocketed. Businesses also could no longer afford to hire coal workers, so they were gradually replaced with machines. By the early 1960s, there was massive unemployment in the coal industry and once prosperous mining towns became virtually deserted.[3] This example demonstrates the fact that unions only benefit their own members at the expense of everyone else. If unions were really looking out for the best interests of all workers, then they would dissolve themselves immediately.

Those who condemn Wal-Mart for closing their store in Jonquiere should reconsider their position. It is usually rich middle-class people who hate Wal-Mart because they see the company’s austere and frugal nature as exploitive of lower classes. However, Wal-Mart employs 1.4 million Americans[4] and 90 000 Canadians[5], contributing greatly to the workforce, and they can afford to sell goods at a discount to those who may not have been able to afford them otherwise. I see Wal-Mart as beneficial to any community because they are a cheap source of everyday goods. Why should Wal-Mart have kept that one store in Jonquiere open if unionization made their business-model unviable? Rational people are in business to make a profit, and if no profit is to be made in Jonquiere, Quebec, then businessmen will go elsewhere.

---

[1] http://money.howstuffworks.com/wal-mart.htm

[2] Friedman, Milton. Free to Choose: A Personal Statement. Pg. 234

[3] Sowell, Thomas. The Thomas Sowell Reader. Pg. 72

[4] http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/11/27/why-do-1-4-million-americans-work-at-walmart-with-many-more-trying-to/

[5] http://walmartcanada.ca/Pages/Company%20Profile/168/163/163

Washington Redskins Should Not Change Their Name

             Social justice advocates have been making a lot of noise recently about the Washington Redskins. Many believe that the term “Redskins” is offensive to Native Americans and that it should be changed to something more politically correct. Despite all the outrage, the owner of the team, Dan Snyder, adamantly refused to give up the name, saying, “We will never change the name of the team. As a lifelong Redskins fan, I think that the Redskins fans understand the great tradition and what it’s all about and what it means”. Amidst growing outrage, the US Patent Office voted 2-1 to cancel the trademark last week, meaning that the Washington Redskins logo is now unprotected by unauthorized duplication. Even though Snyder plans to appeal the ruling, the social justice crowd is already calling this a landmark decision.

            While I can understand how Native Americans might find the name Redskins offensive, I do not believe it is the role of government to cancel patents solely on that basis. What someone finds offensive is entirely subjective. A term that has the potential to make some individuals wince in disgust might be completely innocuous to others. This entails that no objective standards of political correctness could reasonably be enforced since they cannot even be agreed upon. Thus, when the Patent Office cancels the trademark of an organization just because it is offensive to some people, this sets a disturbing precedent about the role of government. If any group of concerted individuals can whine and complain about anything they deem repugnant and get the Patent Office to comply with their demands, what good is the patent system to begin with? Ownership of property is an unalienable right in an open society. The name and trademark of the Washington Redskins are the property of Dan Snyder, and as such, he has sole authority to change, dispose, or keep the team name if he wants to. Regardless of whether the team name is offensive or not, it is immoral for a government to compel Washington to change it. In his HBO special, It’s Bad For Ya, George Carlin spoke some words of wisdom that certainly have relevancy here. He said, “Rights aren’t rights if someone can take them away. They’re privileges. That’s all we’ve ever had in this country is a bill of temporary privileges; and if you read the news, even badly, you know the list gets shorter, and shorter, and shorter.” The Cancellation of the Redskins patent only goes to show prospective social justice warriors that if an organization’s name offends their sensibilities, they can clamour to the government and get their patent revoked.

            Some people may argue that changing the team name is not that big of a deal, and any costs it does entail would be a small price to pay to ensure nobody is being offended. Anybody who makes such an argument is ignoring the value of many sports franchises. The name and logo of any sports team, especially one that has such a long and successful history as the Redskins, carries value. The Washington Redskins are a name that people recognize and if the team completely rebrands itself, then that recognition would be lost. Forbes has listed the Redskins as the eighth most valuable franchise in the league at 1.7 Billion dollars, and much of that value comes from the name itself. To many fans, their team names are important and symbolize the tradition and history of their achievements. Rebranding the team would not only affect the fanbase, but it would also incur a tremendous financial burden on the team’s owners. Changing the Redskins name means hiring patent and trademark attorneys, graphic designers, as well as purchasing new jerseys, merchandise, and equipment, which costs millions of dollars. It’s not as simple as changing a few light bulbs. Even political correctness comes at a price.

            Those who are most adamant about changing the team name should reconsider their priorities. If one’s goal is to impose political-correctness onto the world, they should begin by dismantling the thousands of actual hate groups throughout North America that actively work to promote racism, hate and discrimination instead of attacking the name of some innocuous sports team. Many other sports teams have names that are arguably more offensive than the Redskins, such as the Notre Dame Fighting Irish, The Cleveland Indians, and The Edmonton Eskimos. The fact that social justice warriors are up in arms about The Redskins, but haven’t uttered a peep about The Eskimos (a de facto racial slur) demonstrates the confirmation bias so often conveyed by these people. If one is intent on abolishing bigotry in major league sports logos, then they should be decrying all offensive logos, not Just the Washington Redskins. There’s no reason to just pick on Washington, considering Native Americans are not even unanimously offended by the team’s name. Several polls taken throughout the past decade have consistently shown that most Native Americans don’t find the name Redskins to be that odious. The poll taken in 2004 shows that only nine percent of Native Americans had an objection to the term and another poll taken as recently as 2013 shows that nearly eighty percent oppose the team name change. It appears to me that the noisiest voices against the Redskins are well-meaning, but ultimately misguided white folks who feel they are doing the world a favour by imposing their opinions on others. Everybody has different values, preferences, and beliefs, and thus anybody could conceivably be offended by anything. Just because you have the right to find a given book, television show, political party, or football logo offensive, does not entail you should censor or banish them. Otherwise, we would inhabit a world where everything was censored and everything was banned.

            All that being said, I can empathize with any Native Americans who are truly offended by the team name. However, just because a name is offensive to some people, doesn’t mean it necessarily should be changed. If so, who is to determine what is objectively offensive and what isn’t?  The fact that the Patent Office cancelled the trademark solely for that reason clearly shows that the government feels it is the arbiter in this respect. If a group of people find an organization objectionable, the most productive and mature way of voicing their distaste is by voting with their wallets. Just like with any product or service that does not meet your standards, you have the right not to support it financially. If you don’t like the Redskins, don’t buy their merchandise, don’t go to the games, don’t follow the team, and don’t give them exposure. It’s that simple. When you have to go crying to Big Daddy Government about your fragile sensibilities, then maybe it’s not the world that should conform to your standards, but the other way around. 

Edmonton Woman Seeking to End Her Discrimination

A recent article from The National Post describes a woman who proposes to end workplace discrimination for individuals with body modifications. Kendra Behringer, resident of Edmonton, has twenty-two facial piercings and says she won’t tolerate discrimination from employers based on the way she looks. The article describes how Behringer was rejected from dozens of jobs and so she is seeking to change the Alberta Human Rights Act to make it illegal for employers to discriminate against persons with tattoos and piercings. The act already forbids discrimination based on race, gender, age, religious and political affiliation, but Behringer argues that body modifications should be added to the list as well.

It is clear from this article that people like Behringer want to have their cake and eat it too. In an open society, individuals should be allowed to modify their bodies however they like; piercings, tattoos, scarification, and lip-discs should all be allowed if one chooses. However, just because one is permitted to alter their body in such ways, does not entail they can escape the judgement of others. Any adult who makes the decision to get piercings or tattoos does so in recognition of the fact that others will judge them based on these decisions. As an adult living in the real world, one has to consider the potential consequences such modifications with incur. You can’t indulge in any sort of behaviour you want and then expect to not be held accountable for it. If Ms. Behringer was intent on working in a retail setting or at a business that upholds certain dress codes, she should have considered this before stamping a bunch of holes in her face.

When an employer refuses to hire someone because of their body modifications, it’s not discrimination—certainly not in the sense that racism, sexism, or anti-Semitism constitute discrimination. In recognition of the fact that all human beings have different attributes, an employer must accept the applicant with the optimal attributes for the position they are hiring for. For example, if an employer refuses to hire someone because they are black, then that employer would be a racist since being black should not automatically disqualify someone from any particular position. However, if an employer was hiring for a heavy-duty construction job that required heavy lifting, it would seem justifiable for them not to hire a sixteen year-old girl because she isn’t strong enough. I do not see this as discrimination, but rather competition. A sixteen year old could not possibly keep up with some muscular guy who is adequately built for such work. Likewise, the tough muscular guy would probably have a hard time getting a retail job at La Senza since he lacks the attributes to compete in that line of work. Competition is distinct from discrimination since in competition there is an economic rationale behind why an employer would not hire someone apart from just being a bigot.  Companies have to hire people who will best represent them, and if an employer believes that Behringer’s piercings will distract employees, shock customers, or harm sales, then they have every right not to hire her on that basis. People with extensive body modifications are less competitive in certain markets. Having twenty-two facial piercings might be great if your goal in life is the join The Cruxshadows, but if you want to work somewhere with a dress code, such things are unadvisable.

The fact that Ms. Behringer is seeking to make it illegal for employers not to hire her reflects the whiny sense of entitlement that is so prevalent in our culture today. Instead of cultivating one’s talents and adequately preparing for the line of work one hopes to pursue, people today just expect employers to cater to their needs. If you make the choice to get tattoos or piercings then you must accept responsibility for whatever consequences they entail.  

"I'm ready for my interview now."

California Gun-Control Bill is Completely Pointless

"My hard-on for gun-control is this long." -DF

Always looking to capitalize on the latest tragedy for political support, Democratic senators from the state of California—Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer have proposed the “Pause for Safety Act”.  According to this article, the bill would allow people to take out “temporary gun prevention orders” on those they suspect are unstable or potentially threatening. Under this bill, courts can issue orders allowing for the seizure of firearms by those who are deemed dangerous. With the Elliot Rodgers case and several other recent spree-shootings still fresh in everyone’s minds, it is no wonder the gun-control crowd has yet again seen fit to exploit the victims of these tragedies as a means to push their own agenda.

At first glance, it might seem like this bill does not infringe on the freedom of a law-abiding citizen’s right to bear arms, but in practice it may not be as innocuous as it appears. First of all, had this law been in effect already, how many spree shootings would it really have stopped? If the bill requires someone to file a temporary gun prevention order against someone they believe to be a threat, then I fail to see how this would have stopped any of the recent spree shooters. It takes a certain kind of disturbed lunatic to open fire on a crowd of innocent people. Those who are bent on doing harm to others are not likely to obey gun laws in the first place. In fact, the majority of firearms involved in murders in the United States were purchased illegally. This bill effectively does nothing to eliminate the thousands of illegal firearms already in North America, which aren’t going away regardless of how many laws are passed. It is naïve to think that homicidal lunatics are going to relinquish their firearms just because Dianne Feinstein said so. Mentally unstable criminals are not thwarted by temporary prevention orders.

You might be saying, “Well, maybe this bill won’t actually prevent any crimes, but it still sounds like a good idea, right? I mean, who wants to let potentially dangerous people own guns?” The problem with this line of reasoning is that it is not always easy to determine whether someone is a potential threat. Whenever one of these spree killers goes out and shoots twenty people, we always look for red flags in their behaviour that would have allowed us to prevent the violence beforehand. Sometimes it is quite obvious that somebody is a threat, as in the case of Elliot Rodgers, but oftentimes you can't tell that someone is violent until they've acted out.  How then, is a court supposed to draw the line between someone who is a legitimate threat or just a well-meaning eccentric? To me it seems as though there is no accurate criteria by which we can label somebody as a potential threat. Without any reliable criteria in that respect, how are the courts in a position to issue warrants allowing for the seizure of people’s property? If this bill becomes law, then I predict that there will be many gun-owners who will unjustly be labelled as “potentially dangerous” and have their weapons seized by the government.  Maybe the guy who lives on your block doesn’t like you face and decides he’s going to file a gun prevention order on you because he feels “threatened”. Or maybe a manipulative wife files a prevention order against her husband on a whim because she got mad at him for some reason. If you have a decent imagination, you can probably think of scenarios when a law like this could be abused.

This is a classic example of a group of misinformed politicians fishing for votes by the proposition of well-meaning, albeit completely useless legislation. It’s all about making things sound good on paper.  Those who support this bill have not made an effort to look past their knee-jerk reactionary instincts to gun violence to consider the ineffectiveness of controlling firearms.  Taking guns away from anyone will not prevent violence, it will only encourage it. 

Nietzsche Club Banned at University College London

University College London has banned a Nietzsche club from holding meetings at the school on the grounds that the philosopher’s work encourages right-wing and fascist ideas. UCL’s student union barred the club as it believes “fascism is directly threatening the safety of the UCL student body.” According to This article, the action banning the club from campus was part of a wider initiative at the school called “Fight Fascism”, wherein “a united front of students, workers, trade unions, and a wider labour movement… [fight] the root cause of fascism—capitalism.”

It must be a daily barrel of laughs attending a school run by such Marxist stooges as those at UCL. Contrary to what they are saying, banning the Nietzsche club really has nothing at all to do with “fighting fascism” and everything to do with publicity. It’s about covering their asses. When a university such as UCL is publically funded and takes in tax money, it has to maintain a semblance of political correctness, otherwise squeaky wheels like Timur Dautov or Suey Park will bitch and complain and the school will lose its funding.  Universities such as these will not tolerate any clubs or associations that do not tote the party line or could be possibly perceived as offensive by someone, somewhere. Don’t let their rhetoric fool you. They don’t give a fuck about fascism. It’s all about money.

Those columns weren't built out of free speech, you know.

All of that aside, I bet you that the people who spearheaded these idiotic initiatives can’t even tell you what fascism is all about, or even why it is still relevant in the year 2014. If the stooges at UCL had a genuine concern about its students being corrupted by fascist ideology, then they should encourage an open discussion about the tenets of fascism so the students can learn for themselves why fascism is immoral and why it should be avoided. Just as banning books makes people want to read them more and censoring music only makes it more popular, decreeing that a Nietzsche Club cannot have meetings will only make people more interested in Nietzsche’s philosophy. Banning information is thought control; it is unethical and will not eliminate the thoughts in question. If Nietzsche’s or anyone else’s ideas really were poisonous, then hiding them only gives them an allure. It will attract people to them if only for the fact that they are hidden. I’m sure the students who attend UCL are intelligent enough to think for themselves and they don’t need some douchebag Marxist administrator determining what is appropriate for them to read.

As the article on Thedailybeast already points out, Friedrich Nietzsche was not a fascist. His connection to Hitler and Mussolini stems from an erroneous interpretation of his ideas which was promoted by his sister,who had a poor grasp on his philosophy to begin with. An in-depth examination of Nietzsche’s writing goes beyond the point I am trying to make in this post, I do not believe his ideas are particularly dangerous that they should be discouraged. However, just because someone’s beliefs are immoral, does not mean they are not worth examining. If UCL really had a substantial argument against the philosophy of Nietzsche, then they would present it and allow it to be judged on its own merits. Only weaklings censor works they disagree with. The banning of the Nietzsche club by UCL really goes to show the moral cowardice inherent in the standards of political-correctness today. If merely being exposed to ideas that are deemed unattractive is enough to corrupt a student body, then perhaps it is what is attractive that is truly corrupt to begin with. 

In other news, UCL's Book Burning Club just got a new endowment fund.