One of the things about being a skeptic and questioning your own beliefs is that it can lead to some pretty strange combinations. This is mainly because individual beliefs are often completely unrelated to one another. I have a sort of “General Rule” that I think most people would agree with: people should be able to do whatever they want, provided they do not harm anyone else while doing it (or, at least, engaging in activities that can easily and relatively likely harm someone else). Or, more formally, people have the fundamental right to choose their own lives, provided they don’t infringe on that same right of others.
For one, as I posted before, I support the total legalization of drugs. If you want to get stoned, shoot up, swallow acid tabs, etc. that’s your decision. It would be wrong of me to impose my choice on you to not do drugs. Whenever you get the government involved, you are doing exactly that: imposing your decisions on other people who may not share your values.
That belief is commonly associated far left side of the political spectrum. But I recently found that, if I am to be true to my beliefs, I must embrace a position which is typically associated with the far right.
I must support the choice of people to bear arms. A gun is completely inert, unless someone is there to operate it. A gun cannot choose to shoot someone of its own free will, because it doesn’t have free will. So, as long as someone is responsible and doesn’t go shooting the place up, they’re not harming anyone, so they must be allowed to own a gun.
I even extended this line of thought to the Assault Weapons Ban. An assault weapon is just a really big gun, and so should similarly protected. I was immediately bewildered at the fact that, logically, i should oppose both laws which ban assault weapons and drugs, even though they seem like complete opposite politically.
In fact, that not only did I support personal choice on both issues, I realized that they were really the same issue! They are two facets of the much broader issue: who gets to own what? And the answer, if it is to be in line with my General Rule above, is that everyone should be allowed to own both, if they so choose.
Well, not everyone. Like, you know, not children. And actually, I think of gun ownership much like driving. If you screw around and deliberately cause accidents and run people down, you should be barred from driving. Similarly, if you mow down a crowd of people with an AK-47, you should have it taken away from you. Perhaps it would be better to consider gun ownership, like driving, a privilege, but one that is by default available to all adults initially.
I also designed a little image, because I like designing little images, to highlight my beliefs: