Choices and Consequences

Greetings,

Another dichotomous relationship that people tend to focus on one side of the relationship and forget the other; I have previously discussed rights and responsibilities (https://historicalsocialpolitical.blogspot.com/2018/08/rights-and-responsibilities.html). It seems to be a modern trend that people want to focus on all of the things that they have the right to do but forget about the consequences of these actions. This, for me, is a real problem.

I can choose to eat junk food all of the time, but I must accept that if I do not exercise on a regular basis and possibly even more that I will put on weight. I can choose to sit around and do nothing with myself, and sit around and watch television, but I must accept that I will achieve nothing as a consequence of this choice. I can choose to not take the medications which I am on, but must accept that the consequence of this action is that my health is going to suffer as a result of this decision. I can choose to neglect my hygiene but the consequence is that my health will suffer and it is likely that people will not want to be around me particularly much.

In each one of these situations there is a choice and a consequence. In every situation where there is a choice to be made there is also a consequence which will result from that choice. The most interesting thing is that we make choices all of the time, and not making a choice also has consequences as well. The most important thing is that the consequences are something which cannot be avoided because they are inconvenient, or because they are something which we did not plan for, or because we do not like them. They do exist and this is the way it is.

A person may choose to wear a piece of clothing because they like the cut of it but it is outlandish and makes them stick out. The consequence of this is that people are going to look in their direction. A person may decide to speed in their motor vehicle. The consequences of this could be that they will be caught by the police, or that they may be involved in a collision. A person may choose to point out that there are certain things wrong with society. The consequence of this could be that people could decide to join them, or the people could think that they are a trouble-maker, or elements of the government may decide to take a closer look at them. Each one of the choices a person makes has consequences, some of them are not planned for.

What also needs to be known about consequences is that there are those consequences that we plan for and there are those which we do not plan for. The latter are those which are usually a result of a flow-on effect of choices made, or a result of linked elements which were not taken into account. In any case these consequences must also be accepted, even if they were not planned for. In any case the choices made have consequences and people need to accept this.

Cheers,

Henry.

The "Public" Face

Greetings,

The discussion that follows is one which I have briefly touched on previously. In that post it was about how the Internet made us anonymous, or at least had the potential for doing this for us (https://historicalsocialpolitical.blogspot.com/2018/08/internet-connection-cloak-of-anonymity.html). This article is, in a way, an examination of the opposite, the "public" face which is presented, and how this can affect our interactions with other people.

There are two faces which we have, a "public" face which we present to the world, and a "private" face which we keep for our close friends and family. There are similarities between these two faces, but there are often differences as well. We get to choose what parts of ourselves we present to the public sphere, for the most part, and we get to choose what parts we hide, though erosions in privacy are making this more and more difficult. There are clearly places where our "public" face and our "private" face will blur, and how much these blur is most often our choice.

There are people who will automatically have a "public" face that is known by people, these people are what are known today as celebrities. However, anyone who interacts with the public also has a "public" face which will become known and attached to certain things. This may not be on the same scale as these "celebrities" but they will still become known. Hopefully they will become known for the right things.

A person who makes statements and stands with regard to certain things, will become known for these things. The more that they make statements about these things the more that people will have an expectation for them to be of a certain character. A person who makes statements about human rights, gender equality, and other political matters is going to be expected to also be acting according to those same statements, even in their personal life. As soon as they are seen to be "soft" on one area, which relates to another where they have made some grand statement in any way, their credibility will be damaged. Care needs to be taken with what we are seen to be standing for as it can come back to us, the Internet has a long memory.

Some will claim that they have a different personality or face for different interactions due to the nature of those interactions. A person thus may act brashly, arrogantly, with interactions on-line, but then may be friendly and considerate in-person. The problem is that if all people have seen is the former interaction, because they have never met the person in-person this is all that they are going to be known as. You may claim that, "But that was on-line." It was you, it was your interactions. You cannot separate your "face" on-line from your "face" in-person. Things to distance you from your on-line "face" will only work for so long, people will eventually find out, it is better that you treat people on-line how you would in-person.

The "public" face which you present should be one that you would want to meet and interact with. Have consideration for what you are going to put out there, because it is almost guaranteed that if you write something that you are going to regret, it will haunt you for ages afterward. This "public" face should be even a deeper consideration for those who would want to spread information, or attempt to sell their wares of any kind. Good-will can be upset quite severely through the ill-considered interactions of your "public" face with people.

How often have we seen the popularity of politicians and celebrities damaged by ill-considered statements on their parts? The same can happen to us if we are not careful. Consider carefully whether you really want to post that statement before you press the "post" or "send" button. Once it is out there you can't have it back.

Cheers,

Henry.

Weapons Control... Not Just Guns

Greetings,

The subject of gun control is not one I usually post about simply because it does not seem to be a subject which it is possible to have a calm discussion about as people become too emotional about it. Before I begin the core of this discussion I will note some important biases which will colour my opinions with regard to this matter. I have a family history with regard to firearms. My father was a part-time gunsmith, both my parents were licensed shooters. I fired my first rifle at the age of 8 years old and was taught my first lessons about firearm safety at the age of 7. I am also a Life Member of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (SSAA). With all of these details noted, we move on.

The first thing that needs to be noted is the subject of terminology, we are not talking about guns, we are talking about firearms. Firearm is the term knowledgeable people use when discussing this particular subject, gun is the generic term. Firearm is also the one which appears in the Weapons Act.

With regards to our Weapons Acts, as we have one for each state and territory of Australia. Almost every time there is some sort of mass shooting in the United States or elsewhere, people get up in arms about tightening our weapons laws. Why? Did it happen in Australia? How will tightening our weapons laws prevent something from happening in another country? Further, it should be noted that the last time we had a mass shooting in Australia, primarily in 1996, the Port Arthur massacre, and then in 2014 after the Lindt Cafe siege, some 18 years apart. Incidences such as these are used as "evidence" for the need for tighter weapons laws. In both instances the weapons were illegally obtained, thus obtained outside the law so tighter weapons laws would not have stopped them anyway.

Likewise to compare the SSAA and the NRA is ludicrous. Both organisations have their similarities but they also have their stark differences. From my own personal point of view, I am proud to be a member of the SSAA, I would never become a member of the NRA. I personally think that what the NRA does is push the bounds of the reasonable way too far. Needless to say Australia does not have gun ownership enshrined in its constitution unlike the United States, and this aspect is what gives the gun lobby in the United States its power. The gun lobby in Australia is not such a fearsome beast.

What needs to be noted is that the legislation in each of the states and territories in Australia is a Weapons Act not a Firearms Act. What does this mean? What this means is that they do not just cover firearms but other weapons as well. Crossbows are legal in Queensland so long as you are licensed, in New South Wales they are prohibited, they are not firearms. Swords are fine to be carried in a normal bag and taken care of as any other piece of sporting equipment, and so long as you are not waving it around in public without a good reason you will not be hassled about it. In Victoria, they need to be locked away in a lockable container in a similar way to firearms. This goes for the blunt weapons we use for medieval and Renaissance recreation as well. At one point in time consideration was made toward legislating bows, but was considered too difficult to enforce.

Firearms may be the popular target when it comes to the Weapons Act, but it does not mean that government agencies are not looking to restrict other weapons. This is one of the reasons why it is vital that anyone who is involved with any sort of weapons whatsoever is careful and treats them with respect. All it needs is for someone to draw the wrong sort of attention and restrictions can be brought against other weapons not just firearms.

When you consider your support for tougher firearms laws, or weapons laws as the case truly is consider what you are really asking for. Consider what you are asking the politicians to do. Consider that they may decide that the weapons which belong with your medieval and Renaissance hobby are too dangerous and you should not be able to use them anymore, or not without severe restriction. When we take action for a cause we should always consider what sort of flow-on effect this may have with other aspects which are related to that cause, things are more connected than you realise. It also means that we should all take care to ensure that we do not perform any action which may draw any unwanted attention our way. There is always someone willing to get annoyed with any excuse with what we are doing.

Cheers,

Henry.

Rights and Responsibilities

Introduction

This post is one that I think needs to be written as it highlights something which needs to be stated and needs to be noted by many people as many people talk about Rights but few of the same people talk about Responsibilities, the other side of those Rights that they claim. I will start very simply with this discussion and then move on to deeper and more significant matters to present arguments which must be made and highlight elements which must be brought to light for all of us to act as real humans and real adults.

"Out on the Town"

So, a group of friends decide to go out and have a night on the town, have a few drinks and generally have a good time. This is their Right as adults. Unless they all decide that they will travel home by public transport this means that one of them will have to be the "designated driver". This is a Responsibility which goes hand in had with the Right which everyone is enjoying. Likewise if they decide to go home by public transport there is planning that needs to be done, that is also a Responsibility that one or all of the members must be involved in. Thus Rights and Responsibilities are interwoven here.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

So now we will go to the other end of the scale of things and have a look at a very important document which states what Rights every person on the planet should have. This document can be found here: http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/. This is a most interesting document as within some of the Rights which are stated there are also Responsibilities also present.

The Responsibilities within this document actually start within the Preamble, "that human rights should be protected by the rule of law". Thus within the beginnings of the document it requires as a Responsibility of signatory nations that these Rights are protected by the rule of law. This Responsibility to uphold this document goes even further than that in that it states,

"Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,"

Thus the Preamble reminds the Member States of the United Nations that they have pledged themselves, i.e. promised, to co-operate with the UN to promote these human rights, thus again Responsible for doing so.

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

Article 1, unedited. everyone is Responsible to act toward everyon else in a spirit of brotherhood. It would seem that this Responsibility has gone by the way-side in many situations. This is the first one, admittedly the Responsibility is only implied, but it is present.

Several of the following Articles within the document place a heavy Responsibility upon Member States within the UN with regard to laws made and upholding these laws to ensure that their people are treated fairly. No doubt their are violations which could be cited in several places in several countries. Even several "respectable" nations could be creeping a little close due to Article 9, "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile." when considering the current detainment conditions under various terror laws, but this is not the aim of this exercise.

Needless to say, it is a very involved document, where, if looked at closely there are all sorts of Rights detailed, and lots of State Responsibilities implied. However, there are few individual Responsibilities implied or stated within this document, which is a little cause of concern as there must be a balance. It is the lack of this balance, which causes issues

Rights Without Responsibilities

When people are given Rights but not Responsibilities there is an issue as they are given things but not expected to do anything in return for it. This can be seen in many different places. Many of our youths these days are given Rights but not Responsibilities and this leads them to flout their Rights all over the place and cause issues. This can be seen where adults have no power to discipline children or youths in any real fashion.

We often see that an individual will do something wrong but is never expected to take Responsibility for their actions as their are loop-holes through which they can slip. In many instances this is not just children and youths, but adults as well. Taking Responsibility for ones actions is how we grow and learn from our mistakes so that we do not make the same mistake over again.

There are issues which need to be tackled. There are real mental and social issues which impair groups and place them in a position where they will cause problems, but placing them back in the same situation cannot be the way out. Blanket legislation of "youths" or "criminal activity" is also not the way as it places vulnerable individuals in situations where they will not learn, or will only learn how to be more effective at doing the wrong thing. Here, again, is a failure of the teaching of Rights and Responsibilities.

One of the Responsibilities that most needs to be taught is Responsibilities for choices made and the consequences of those choices which go along with them. So often we hear complaints about situations where a person is in a situation where if they had made a different choice they would be in a better situation. More to the point the same person is blaming everyone else for their problems. This is a person cannot take Responsibility for their own choices. It needs to be taught and taught well, along with this is planning ahead to deal with the consequences of the choices made.

Trickle Down Effects

Legislation is devised by politicians to supposedly solve an issue when examined from their position. It is placed into law and then it does not work, no surprise. It is because they do not understand what is happening at the level where their legislation effects. They have the Right to make legislation which affects which ever part of the nation they govern, but they also have the Responsibility to make sure that it is the right legislation so that it will be for the advantage of their constituents.

The budget is too far in deficit, so the politicians use their Right to legislate a cut in spending. Where do they cut the spending? At the top? No, at the bottom. Social welfare programs get attacked. Pensions get attacked. Hospital funding gets attacked. Schools get attacked. Then they wonder why unemployment and crime increases. They also wonder why they all of a sudden become unpopular. It is because they have not been Responsible to all the people who they govern.

Conclusion

The whole thing may sound like the ramblings of some cranky old guy who dreams of a "better past when I was a lad", but there must be some balance between the Rights we give and the Responsibilities we expect of people otherwise things will simply be out of kilter. Responsibilities need to be taught just as the Rights do, and with the same emphasis. Both are important.

I have given a simple example of Rights and Responsibilites with the group going out on the town for a night, and I have given a much more complex example in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. What needs to be noted here is that both elements are present in both. What followed are examples of what happens when people forget about their Responsibilities, both to themselves and to others. The effects can be devastating. More to the point, not taking into account to consequences of a choice is also an effect which needs to be noted. Remember, you are Responsible for your choices and the consequences which come with them.

Cheers,

Henry.