Category Archives: Midmorning Zone

Midmorning Zone: Negotiating Conversations on Gun Control

You are about to enter another dimension, a dimension not only of extremes and balances but of constructiveness.  Welcome to a journey into a wondrous land limited only by the mind.  Your next stop: the Midmorning Zone

Rejoin our friends A and B as they discuss what they think about the topic of gun violence, and what approaches the situation might call for. They start their discussion with two different sets of assumptions and priorities.  

In the world you’re familiar with, such a conversation would consist of several hours of back-and-forth statistics and dismissals, ultimately leading nowhere.  A and B are different, though, and the conversation between our two traveling companions will lead us through… the Midmorning Zone.  

A: We need to make it impossible for people to bring guns into public places and start shooting people.  We should do whatever it takes to eliminate gun violence.  

B: I agree that gun violence is something that, in the ideal case, we want to eliminate.  People should be able to feel safe in public places and in their own homes.  I’m certainly willing to put in extra effort to craft and implement plans to reduce gun violence and violence in general.  You don’t have to convince me of that.  Your values make sense to me.

A: Oh, that’s good.  I’m sensing a caveat here, though.  

B: Unfortunately, yes.  Before we lock ourselves in to a particular approach or combination of approaches to accomplish that goal, we should at least understand the other values at stake, because they do exist.  There are reasons that people want to allow public gun ownership in the first place.  We need to consider the costs and side effects of the approaches available so that we can eliminate gun violence as much as possible while meeting the needs that people currently rely on guns for.

A: That’s something I’ve never understood, so we should probably start with that.  Why do people value public gun ownership?  What is the advantage in allowing people to have weapons?  By definition, a weapon’s purpose is to amplify the ability of a person to inflict harm through violence.  

B: Well, I would argue that in modern society, a weapon’s primary purpose is actually social rather than physical.  Its ability to physically harm is a last resort.  Most of the time, guns serve as a deterrent for two different types of behavior.  First, they deter turmoil (physical violence and coercion) by acting as a force equalizer, hence why guns are sometimes referred to as “equalizers”.  In a world with no weapons, if two people fighting have roughly equal combat experience, the stronger person will usually defeat the weaker person; a person wearing armor will defeat a person without armor; and a group of people will defeat a single person.  A gun creates a situation of mutually assured destruction.  Wrongdoers who have a normal sense of self-preservation will not menace someone who can shoot them.  Everyone’s a glass cannon in that situation: the only way to not get hurt is not to fight.  Ideally no one would be threatening violence in the first place, but in this day and age the fundamental liability of conflict still frequently manifests as turmoil.  Unfortunately, for the time being guns are very useful for humans in many places to defend themselves from each other. 

A: I can spot one immediate problem with the idea of guns as a deterrent to turmoil, and that’s the possibility of violent people without a sense of self-preservation.  The existence of “good guys with guns” doesn’t scare them.  

B: Agreed.  Arming everyone is not sufficient to keep people safe from self-destructive violent people.  We do want to do something about that as well.  However, I still think that allowing people to arm themselves is useful for deterring ordinary crime committed by people who have self-preservation.  

A: Don’t we have a police force that already deters crime and turmoil, though?  

B: Yes, and that does help in many areas.  There are still a few gaps in police protection that we can fill in by allowing people to own their own guns, though.  Firstly, some people live in rural areas, far from police stations.  If they need police assistance, it takes the police a relatively long time to arrive, and if the people need to defend themselves or their houses during that time, a gun is essential.  Also, I have heard many concerns that the police may not always be completely trustworthy, and probably should not have a monopoly on force.

A: Fair point.  We don’t want to perpetuate the idea that the primary purpose of the police is to draw their guns on people, because they should be striving to resolve conflicts without using violence or threats.  However, doesn’t that lead us back to the conclusion that we want to remove weapons across the board, from everyone?  We’d still have a police force; they just wouldn’t have weapons. 

B: If we could do that and have it work, that would be great.  The problem is that for the foreseeable future, there will always be people who try to get what they want through violence and turmoil.  Sometimes what they want is simply violence itself.  Until that changes, we will need the ability to defend ourselves against turmoil, and the most efficient way to do that is with guns, because they’re force equalizers.  We created a police system to protect ourselves from violent people (with and without guns) and that reduces the number of people who have to be armed, but unfortunately it turns out we may even need deterrents to protect ourselves from the police system, at least for now while we’re still working on the solutions for that issue we discussed earlier.  

A: Oh, how wonderful.  Does each additional solution to violence keep making the problem worse, or do things level off eventually?  

B: Yeah, it turns out it’s very difficult to find a substitute for the ability of a community to defend itself.  After all, feudalism was based in part on the inability of peasants or serfs to defend their own communities.  Noble landowners received the sworn fealty of their serfs in exchange for the responsibility to suit up and protect them from… well, other noble landowners, sometimes from neighboring countries, but also from bandits and raiders.  Because the noble landowners had a monopoly on force, they wielded tremendous authority over their vassal populations, and often abused that authority.  However, feudalism started breaking down around the time guns and cannons got good enough to start making armored knights and other elite melee combatants obsolete, so we do have gunpowder weapons to thank for that.  A peasant soldier with a musket can beat a knight with armor and a sword.  That’s democratization of force for you.  

A: That is arguably a step forward.  However, feudalism lasted a while longer in Eastern Europe, if I remember correctly.  Plus, feudalism’s heir, aristocracy, survived for a long time afterward and is arguably still going on.  Are guns supposed to help us with… wait a minute.  I see where this is going.  Armed revolutions? 

B: Exactly.  The American Revolutionary War, like all other revolutions and wars of independence across the world, happened because people felt they were being oppressed by aristocratic or colonial rule, but had virtually no legal recourse because the aristocrats made the laws.  So they employed their last resort and engaged in violent revolution.  That revolution was only possible because the people were able to arm themselves.  That’s why the people writing the United States Bill of Rights, having fought and won a war of independence, felt it was so important to include the right of the population to maintain access to weapons–in case they ever had to do it again.  

A: So we have to put up with semi-regular gun violence as a necessary side effect of people retaining the option to overthrow the government?  I think we can do better than that.  

B: I agree.  This is just to go over the values at stake so that we can figure out an approach that works without sacrificing anything important.  

A: Fair enough.  So that’s the second type of behavior guns are supposed to deter: corruption.  I can see the value of having a last line of defense against oppression by the government and its laws and agents.  The government is answerable to the people because, if literally nothing else, the people can declare war on the government.  It’s that democratization of force you mentioned before.  

B: And let’s face it, we can barely hold governments accountable anyway.  Imagine how much worse things would get if they didn’t know we could shoot them.  

A: This all sounds barbaric and sad.  It’s just an arms race.  People have to hide behind increasingly powerful weapons but remain vulnerable, so now everyone is living in fear that someone will come along who just wants to watch the world burn.  Even leaving aside the occasional maniac, what if the people who try to overthrow the government are wrong?  

B: Good question.  I think both of those cases make it clear that if we’re going to improve the situation, we have to do something more than just dial up or down the number of guns per capita.  The more successful we are, the less it will matter how many or how few guns are out there.  

A: Alright, I’m willing to entertain that idea as we explore options.  I now think I understand the values you’re concerned about as well.  So what are our possible approaches here?  Let’s define the problem as simply as possible.  We want to prevent people who desire to inflict great harm from using tools that amplify their ability to do that.  We also want to avoid compromising the ability of the public to effectively deter turmoil and corruption.  (Time will tell if guns still seem helpful or necessary as such a deterrent.)  

B: That sounds like a good definition of the problem to me.  It sounds like the problem is mostly based on conflict, with maybe a bit of disaster as well depending on how much you want to look at a violent offender as a calamity like an industrial accident or a weather hazard instead of as a person with motivations.  Let’s take a look at the different angles we can approach this problem from.  I say “angles” instead of “options” because they’re not mutually exclusive.  We can pursue any or all of them to varying degrees, and they can support each other to offset flaws or side effects that might impact any one of them individually.  

A: I like that practice.  First we can get the preparation angle out of the way.  The idea of preparation comes up if we look at instances of gun violence through the lens of disaster instead of conflict.  That is, we can assume that random shootings are just a thing that will happen sometimes, and equip people with the tools and training to respond to active shooters and limit the damage they can do.  I know some people are suggesting this approach, but I don’t think we should rely heavily on it because I’d rather prevent anyone from getting hurt in the first place. Plus, this approach would take a lot of effort from everyone involved to implement, and in practice I don’t think that implementation would go very well in many places.  That said, it might still be a good idea to use metal detectors in places where we’re especially concerned about gun violence.  

B: I agree.  The damage mitigation angle of preparation is probably worth doing to some extent, but it will not be sufficient to satisfy either of our safety concerns.  A second angle which you’ve talked about is to regulate the quantity and power of weapons people are allowed to own, across the board.  That would impose stability by placing known limits on how much violence people are physically capable of inflicting.  

A: Yeah, it’s preventative and seems as concrete and objectively measurable as it gets.  

B: I will give it that.  I’m not inherently against regulating what sorts of guns people can own, either, as long as it’s done with some knowledge of how guns and gun combat work.  I suspect the movie Batman Begins is responsible for people thinking that “semi-automatic” is some dangerous new escalation of guns, but it literally just means you don’t have to cock the gun before each shot like the old-fashioned versions of revolvers and rifles.  Semi-automatics still only fire once when you pull the trigger once, unlike automatics.  (Not to mention most of what we see Batman do is fight crime with violence rather than with strategic investment of his fabulous wealth, which is the method the “League of Shadows” said they used to cause all that crime in the first place, but we’ll get to that in a bit.)  That said, it’d be nice to take a serious look at what the guns we allow people to own can actually do.  I’m not inherently opposed to requiring firearms that have to be cocked before each shot, but we should look at what some firearms and combat experts have to say about the pros and cons of various models and features. 

A: In that case, I’d like to look up some basic firearm capabilities with you later.  But you mentioned that dialing up or down the number of guns per capita wasn’t going to work, so I’m guessing you don’t think this method is sufficient either?  

B: Right.  Humans are clever creatures.  A person with a will to cause harm can find a way even without weapons, so even if bans get stricter and stricter we’ll run into diminishing marginal returns.  We should draw some lines around what we can ban if we want to keep guns as a deterrent.  Obviously there are weapons of mass destruction that we definitely don’t want the public to have.  However, when it comes to smaller, more personal weapons, I don’t believe there’s an intersection in the Venn diagram circles of “weapons that let people deter crime and government oppression” and “weapons that a person cannot use to kill people in a public place”.  I’m not sure it’s logically possible for those categories to overlap.  Plus, and I hate to say this, but regulating guns across the board seems less politically tenable than some other angles we can talk about.  I realize that if we make a habit of saying “people won’t accept this change” we’d be giving up on improving society, but in this case we probably want to explore other angles before pushing too hard on this one.  A significant number of people really care about their ability to own guns, and they may have to think about why they want them before they’re willing to let them go or lose interest in them. 

A: I think this angle is still worth exploring later.  Before we do that, though, let’s look at the rest of the angles.  

B: Alright, the third angle borrows a bit from preparation as well, I think, because it revolves around acquiring knowledge and figuring out how to use that to prevent problems.  It’s about identifying people who want to commit violence, and preventing them from obtaining weapons.  We already do that with background checks and other requirements to buy a firearm from a federally licensed dealer. 

A: Part of the problem with that angle is that it’s not always possible to identify violent people in advance, even if everyone had to get a background check for every gun purchase.  I know you consider it a person’s right to arm themselves, so even if we could identify people as unstable based on psychological markers, I don’t imagine you’d want to take that right away if they hadn’t actually committed a crime, right?  But that means some nasty characters are going to slip through the system because they haven’t done anything bad yet.  

B: That’s true, there are ethical principles we must abide by when we create the criteria for who’s allowed to own guns.  However, I think this angle is still worth investing in.  Beau of the Fifth Column took a look at the statistics, and he says that if we deny permission to own a firearm to people who have committed domestic violence offenses, and actually enforce that policy, then that will eliminate a large percentage of gun deaths.  It’s not a complete solution, but it’s a major gain.  

A: Alright, that’s definitely worth pursuing.  It seems like something a majority of people can get behind, as well.  It does sound like what anyone would think of when they think of “common sense gun laws.”  

B: Great!  There’s one more angle that we should look at.  It’s not as simple as the angle of restricting weapons in general, but it’s preventative and addresses a lot of problems beyond just gun violence.  

A: You’re talking about addressing the reasons people want to commit violence in the first place?  

B: Right.  We can study violent incidents and figure out what motivates people to hurt other people.  Most of it we already know, though: poverty, social isolation, feelings of directionlessness and powerlessness…  Most people who lash out do so because they’re frustrated with their life or their environment, whether or not that frustration is earned.  Violence is the only way they know how to make any impact on the world.  Furthermore, their frustration makes them vulnerable to adopting or developing a violent ideology.  

A: Good point.  Violence is almost always just a symptom of a deeper problem.  Even if we were to take away every gun in the country, those problems and the frustration and misery they cause would still be there.  We can address the underlying problems in society by identifying the people and communities experiencing those problems, and supporting them with a soft approach rather than imposing more laws and regulations on them.  We can supply people with what they need to deal with their problems without violence.  There’s no reason anyone should be pushed to the point of violence by a lack of support from their community, or a lack of support for their community, for that matter.  

B: I remember we mentioned economic issues before in our climate change discussion.  We talked about how even if an industry is threatening public health in some way, people will try to keep it alive if they think there’s no other path forward for them to make a living.  It seems like a lot of the solutions to that problem will also help address this problem, by alleviating poverty and the stress that comes from it.  We’ll have to have a talk dedicated to economic safety nets such as Universal Basic Income at some point. 

A: Definitely.  We should also talk about improvements to the education system like we briefly touched on in the law enforcement discussion, so that children can grow up in good environments and learn skills for both solving problems for themselves and for supporting each other.  

B: Yeah, those are both excellent things to work on.  In the meantime, something we can get started on immediately is shifting gun culture in a healthier direction.  That’s another thing Beau of the Fifth Column has talked about. People need to learn respect for guns as tools for protection rather than as props to command respect.  They need to find some status symbols that don’t rely on the ability to inflict harm.  For people who struggle to develop a positive identity for themselves outside of weaponry and the feeling of being dangerous, we can show them how to develop an identity and self-esteem based on creative skills and activities that contribute to the world.  

A: That reminds me, we still need ideas for dealing with people who just want to cause chaos.  We’ll have to identify them based on their behavior.  Although we can’t put special restrictions on them just for having behavioral markers without risking corruption, we can deliberately guide them to more constructive paths to find fulfillment.  We can also help them integrate with their communities and develop a sense of belonging, so that they actually value other people.  Worst case scenario, we can just have people keep an eye on them informally, and if they start out with minor offenses that’ll give us a legal reason to step in before they decide to escalate.

B: That’s worth looking into as well.  We’ll probably want to discuss that with legal experts of different political perspectives to see what options there are that won’t lead to a corrupt police state. And regarding those misguided armed revolutions you asked about, we can have more conversations like the one we’re having right now to show people how to resolve political disagreements ethically instead of with violence.  If we couldn’t reconcile our concerns by applying ethics, we’d have to fight a war over gun rights, which in addition to being enormously ironic would accomplish nothing good while hurting many people.  

A: At least demonstrating constructive conversations will be easy enough, considering we’ve already had three of them and are wrapping up the fourth.  So to recap the angles we’re looking at, first we can prepare people to deal with gun violence when it does happen, but we really don’t want to have to rely on that.  Second, we can consult some experts on what sorts of firearm regulations would be most effective for reducing public gun violence while still allowing people to defend themselves and resist oppression if necessary.  Third, we can make and enforce laws that people who have committed certain crimes like domestic violence are not allowed to own guns.  Fourth, we can address the underlying problems that lead to gun violence, like poverty, dysfunctional education systems, social isolation, and the inability to reconcile political disagreements.  Some of these problems will be more difficult to address than others.  However, addressing these problems will accomplish even more good than just reducing gun violence. 

B: Right, and it will take as many constructively skilled people as we can gather.  We’d better get started!  

Your host, the author: This conversation was brought to you by the Foundational Toolbox for Life, a system of basic concepts for framing problems and solutions constructively.  A and B have just demonstrated its use here as part of the Visionary Vocabularies project to help people go beyond arguing over tradeoffs and instead work together to build a world we can all be proud of.  

These Midmorning Zone conversations do not purport to have all the research or all the answers.  They are meant to show how you can move a conversation forward.  That means you don’t have to know all the answers in order to have one of these conversations yourself.  You don’t even have to agree with the approaches you read here.  All you have to do is understand your own values, understand other people’s values, and frame the situation constructively.  

As you explore new angles together with other people, you will find some solutions which require more effort to bring to fruition, but which are even better than what any of you had in mind.  

As the Toolbox becomes more widely used, conversations such as the one you just read will become our reality, and lead the way out of the confused, belligerent, flailing dawn of humanity into a thoughtful, neighborly, confident 9:30 or 10 AM.  You, too, can be part of ushering in the end of humanity’s protracted and painful beginning.  Tell your friends about your visit here and let them know that the planet Earth is late for brunch… in the Midmorning Zone.  

P.S. I do recommend checking out Beau of the Fifth Column’s playlist on gun control. He has constructive takes on many topics, and gun control is one of those topics. Videos are ordered from oldest to most recent:

Cooling Down Conversations on Climate Change

You are about to enter another dimension, a dimension not only of extremes and balances but of constructiveness.  Welcome to a journey into a wondrous land limited only by the mind.  Your next stop: the Midmorning Zone.  

Rejoin our friends A and B as they discuss what they think about the topic of climate change, and what approaches the situation might call for. They start their discussion with two different sets of assumptions and priorities. 

In the world you’re familiar with, such a conversation would consist of several hours of back-and-forth statistics and dismissals, ultimately leading nowhere.  A and B are different, though, and the conversation between our two traveling companions will lead us through… the Midmorning Zone.  

A: We need to take measures to stop climate change immediately.  If we don’t, it will cause huge problems in the future.  

B: I agree that it would be bad if the climate changes too much.  We don’t want massive droughts, storms, flooding, et cetera.  However, I’m not sure I see the urgency.  Can’t we take steps once the climate starts becoming intolerable? 

A: I see two problems with that approach.  The first is an ethical problem: allowing the climate to change until we get uncomfortable means people in poorer, more agriculturally and logistically vulnerable regions of the world will still suffer until we do something.  Meanwhile the rich, industrial nations that caused the problem in the first place would profit from selling those other regions the resources to cope with it, if they can cope at all.  That doesn’t seem fair.  

B: Granted.  What’s the other problem?  

A: The other problem is a practical one.  Climate isn’t like a thermostat, where you can dial it up and down whenever you want by controlling carbon emissions.  It’s a collection of stable equilibrium states.  

B: Equilibrium states?  You mean the forces of nature are balanced against each other?  

A: Sort of, but not like walking a tightrope–that’s an unstable equilibrium, where one shove would send the tightrope walker crashing down.  A stable equilibrium is more like a wagon between two hills.  If you give it a shove, it’ll roll partway up one of the hills, but then it will roll back down, and maybe roll up the other hill a bit, and then back down, going back and forth until it comes to a stop in the middle.  

B: Okay, so a single shove won’t hurt; it’ll eventually end up back where it started.  That does sound stable, and convenient for us.  Why are you worried, then?  

A: I’m worried because pumping more and more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere is like constantly pushing the wagon farther and farther up one of the hills, without giving it a chance to roll back down.  If we keep doing that, the wagon will reach the top, and then it will roll down the other side, to a stable equilibrium we don’t want to be in.  It might even just keep rolling on and on if nothing stops it.  It will be very difficult pushing the wagon back up the far side of the hill so that it can roll back down to where we started from–especially if the far side of the hill turns out to be a cliff.  

B: I agree that would be bad.  So you’re saying that once the global average temperature reaches a certain level, we can’t just start removing greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere at that point?  Some other parts of the Earth’s climate system will already have changed enough that we’ll have to deal with them, too?  

A: Yes, exactly.  And we don’t know how much it will cost, if it’s even possible.  That’s why it should be a top priority to avoid shifting the planet out of its current equilibrium state.  

B: Thanks, I understand now why you’re so concerned about the climate changing.  However, I’m still not sure we’re going to reach that point anytime soon.  You’ve been talking about it for a while and your predictions keep changing.  

A: That’s a fair point. I apologize for not acknowledging when my predictions were wrong.  I realize it diminishes my credibility.  That said, I do think that losing the current climate equilibrium is enough of a risk that we should err on the side of caution.  It’s like firearm safety, and how you’re supposed to treat a firearm as loaded even if you know it’s not.  

B: I see your point about safety precautions.  However, it doesn’t cost anything to treat a firearm with respect, whereas addressing climate change would be very expensive.  

A: Yes, it may be expensive to address climate change, but if we don’t, the consequences will be even higher than one person accidentally getting shot.  Scientists’ predictions may have been wrong about when the global temperature will get too high, but the raw evidence makes it seem very likely that it will happen in the foreseeable future, and that seems reason enough to act now to prepare.  As I see it, it’s just the responsible thing to do.

B: I do appreciate responsibility.  However, I’m still unconvinced that climate change is a likely enough issue that we need to take action.  I’ve seen studies that indicate there isn’t actually an imminent problem, leading me to doubt that we need to change directions anytime soon.  To me, the evidence they present seems pretty solid.  

A: As far as evidence against climate change goes, keep in mind that companies in any big industry have a vested interest in keeping anyone from interfering in whatever they do, no matter the to others.  Corporations succeeded for decades at preventing the general public from recognizing the damage that leaded gasoline was doing to public health.  We’ve seen the same stories play out with radium and asbestos.  Maybe you’re right, and big industries aren’t influencing the climate towards a point of no return.  If they were, though, would you really trust them not to try and cover it up?  For me, that strains the limits of optimism. 

B: That is a reasonable point.  By the same token, though, scientists who make a living pushing the idea of climate change have a vested interest in people believing their data.  They make money writing and talking about catastrophe, and they’re backed by the people who would benefit from the large economic changes they’re calling for, including corporations dealing in alternative energy technology like solar and wind power.  How do we know whom to trust?  

A: Hmmm…  That’s also a reasonable point.  We’re running into the principal-agent problem here: how do we know any agent who claims expertise will honorably serve the interests of the principal–in this case, the rest of us?  All science-based policy has this issue.  It’s not reasonable to expect everyone to become a scientific expert in every field, but at some point we as a society need to at least be able to judge the quality of scientific methodology, even if we couldn’t come up with it ourselves.  We need to learn how to ask the right questions to tell the difference between good scientific practice and bad.  After all, it’s supposed to be easier to criticize than to create. A person can review a book or movie even if they couldn’t write one themselves.  We just need people to become armchair scientists so they can hold the professional scientists accountable.  

B: That might still be asking too much.  Not everyone has the time or inclination to be an armchair scientist.  But maybe everyone could have a friend who is.  Perhaps people should start making friends across different backgrounds.  Everyone could have at least a few friends who are more scientifically literate in various fields, and the people who read and evaluate scientific research should have friends among the communities they’re trying to help with that knowledge.  

A: That sounds like a good future to work towards.  In the meantime, though, since we don’t have that trust built up, let’s look at the situation in a way that doesn’t require trust.  We can go back to the issue of responsibility.  Let’s assume that climate change isn’t even all that likely, but that it’s still a distinct possibility.  We deal with risks like that all the time.  It’s unlikely that a house will catch fire, but we still keep smoke detectors and fire extinguishers.  We still do inspections and drills.  Buildings are required to meet fire code requirements even though it makes their construction more expensive.  Why would we not take safety precautions for the world itself?  

B: Fire codes are much more closed-ended than the changes people are calling for to address the possibility of climate change.  Those sweeping changes have a lot of consequences and we don’t even know where they end or what other side effects they’ll have.  

A: That’s a good point.  We need to be specific and honest with our criteria.  What measures would we take, in what circumstances?  What do we hope those measures would accomplish?  How confident are we in the anticipated results?  We can’t build trust without being upfront and transparent.  That transparency goes both ways, though.  What point would the climate have to reach before we decided we needed to change?  Could we even do it in time if we put it off so long?  How hard would we actually try?  Who or what might we have to sacrifice?  Do we really want to deny any need to change up until we have no choice?  Or do we want to take the proactive approach and prevent problems in advance?  

B: Alright, I’m still not 100% convinced of the scientific predictions that you subscribe to, but you’ve introduced some legitimate doubts about how well our current approach will work out for us.  After all, just because something has never happened before doesn’t mean it can never happen. I am interested in hearing about preventative measures to keep the climate from changing beyond what we can handle.  I’d be more inclined to support those preventative measures if you could address some concerns that I have about them.  Part of the problem is that society still has immediate needs that make it difficult to change the status quo.  

A: Thanks, I appreciate that.  In response to immediate concerns that make change difficult, isn’t that all the more reason why we should start working out the steps towards change now, before the issue becomes immediate and even more painful?  If we can’t change the status quo quickly, we need to at least start sooner rather than later.  If we wait until we reach the intersection to start applying the brakes, it’s already too late.  

B: Yes, it seems clear now that we should make sure it’s at least possible for society to put serious proactive effort into addressing problems, even if I’m not sure that climate change is one of those problems.  Furthermore, the less of a burden these efforts are for society, the more willing I’d be to see them spent on addressing possibilities like climate change.  After all, we agree that climate change would have terrible consequences.  We just disagree on how likely it is to actually happen.  If we could reduce what it costs society to take preventative measures against it, I might go along with those measures.  When the price of safety comes down, that’s when more people are willing to invest in preparing for more and more unlikely possibilities.  If you sold pocket devices that stopped people from getting struck by lightning for just a dollar, there’d be people lining up to buy them.  

A: That makes sense.  If we can offset any disruptions our preventative measures may cause, people will be more willing to support them even if they’re less certain about climate change.  That sounds good to me!  I think we can work with that.  

B: Exactly.  So here is my concern about how we would go about addressing climate change as a society: it’s important to avoid hurting the economy any more than we absolutely have to.  Much of the carbon emissions you’re worried about come from manufacturing and transportation, and those sectors of the economy support enormous amounts of commerce.  Reducing those activities would impact people’s ability to get what they need.  It would make things more expensive, and that would kill many jobs.  Job losses in turn would mean less consumer spending, putting even more people out of work and cascading us into a depression.  

A: Can’t people in those sectors just find new jobs?  Job opportunities will be popping up in sustainable energy.  Nuclear power plants should be expanding as well, since nuclear energy will be a huge help while we’re transitioning away from fossil fuels.  

B: Changing careers is not that easy for most people.  It’s even worse with sector shifts: a whole sector of the economy becomes obsolete and everyone in that sector needs to change jobs all at once.  It takes years to train for any job you can support your family on, and all those people still have to compete for new jobs with each other and with young people just entering the job market. Most people don’t have a whole lot saved up to spend on training and on feeding their family while they’re out of work, nor do we want them to have to do that.  They should be able to spend money on what they want and need in the present without worrying about what happens if their job suddenly stops existing.  

A: Okay, I can see why they’d want to keep their jobs.  I guess the economy and the environment are more similar than I realized: we can’t make big changes to them and just assume they’ll turn out okay.  However, it seems unacceptable to me that a sector shift towards technology that’s more advanced or safer or more sustainable would hurt people.  We don’t want people to be hurt by progress, and not just because then they’d try to stop it.  Progress should help everyone.  What can we do to keep moving forward technologically but not hurt people in the process?  

B: Well, to help people deal with economic sector shifts, we might need to change how people train for careers.  First, people need more generalizable skills that they can quickly calibrate to a number of different contexts.  Second, they’d need the ability to find new jobs that pay them enough, and train for them as quickly as possible.  Third, they’d need to be able to survive in the meantime while they’re training as well, with both money and healthcare.  

A: That makes sense to me.  I do want to keep the economy as strong as possible.  In addition to equipping people with more generalizable skills as you mentioned before, I suggest setting up universal basic income.  That’s another conversation in and of itself, but in the context of climate change it means people would have enough to live on while they train for another career, and a supplement to their wages if they start at a lower pay rate than they had before.  

B: Wouldn’t free money result in most people doing nothing?  

A: On its own, it might.  Right now a lot of people work because they’re forced to financially, so once they lose that economic coercion they may not have a reason to work.  However, we’ll be shifting culture as well.  There’s other reasons to work besides the threat of starvation.  You might actually enjoy the job and want to contribute to society.  Or you could work part-time to make some extra money while still spending time on what you want.  If a job is particularly unpleasant, then it should pay more so that people are willing to do it.  In general, people will be more willing to work when they are free to contribute on their own terms and have a stronger place to negotiate for better working conditions with companies who want employees.  

B: Alright, that sounds decent enough for now.  We can go into more detail about how to make that work later.  What else do you suggest?  

A: It’d be good if worker-owned co-ops could replace the top-down hierarchy and shareholder obligations of corporations.  That would result in more equitable distribution of profits, and decisions would be made by the workers themselves.  

B: Would that result in them being more environmentally friendly, though?  

A: More than when the corporation is required to maximize shareholder profit each quarter, at least.  The members of a co-op are more likely to pay attention to the employees’ careers in the long term than an executive board looking out for their own jobs.  

B: Considering how the ability to sell stocks is an important option for a company to raise revenue, I think we’ll have to figure out the pros and cons of co-ops another time.  Anything else?  

A: Oh, we’ll need to deal with health insurance.  Right now all sorts of benefits are tied to employers.  Health insurance and the cost of medical care will be another conversation as well, but it seems like we could at least make insurance portable, so that you can keep it even when you leave a company, as long as you pay for it.  There’s already a federal law in the United States, called COBRA, which allows you to keep health insurance for several months after you leave the company, if the company is large enough to be subject to that rule.  Is there a reason we couldn’t just extend that coverage indefinitely?  

B: That’s definitely something to look into.  Like you said, healthcare is another conversation in and of itself, but at least we’re on the right track.  It looks like the main practical barriers to addressing climate change are economic and labor-related, so we’ll need to rethink some of our economic and labor policies.  So the first things we’re investigating are universal basic income, maybe more co-ops over corporations, and portable health insurance.  

A: Yeah, those are good places to start.  Plus making sure people are trained with generalizable skills, like you mentioned.  

B: Ah, yes.  Education is yet another conversation we’ll have to have.  These are all issues worth tackling in their own right, though, so I’m glad we’re finally talking about them.  

A: Me, too.  Once we have an idea of what constructive policies look like, I think you’ll find them to be well worth the investment.  

B: I’ll look forward to it! 

Your host, the author: This conversation was brought to you by the Foundational Toolbox for Life, a system of basic concepts for framing problems and solutions constructively.  A and B have just demonstrated its use here as part of the Visionary Vocabularies project to help people go beyond arguing over tradeoffs and instead work together to build a world we can all be proud of.  

As the Toolbox becomes more widely used, conversations such as the one you just read will become our reality, and lead the way out of the confused, belligerent, flailing dawn of humanity into a thoughtful, neighborly, confident 9:30 or 10 AM.  You, too, can be part of ushering in the end of humanity’s protracted and painful beginning.  Tell your friends about your visit here and let them know that the planet Earth is late for brunch… in the Midmorning Zone.  

Voter ID and the Third Option Nobody Talks About

You are about to enter another dimension, a dimension not only of extremes and balances but of constructiveness.  Welcome to a journey into a wondrous land limited only by the mind.  Your next stop: the Midmorning Zone.  

Witness a conversation between A and B, who may or may not be the same anonymous figures as last time.  These two people will discuss the tradeoffs of requiring or not requiring people to provide identification in order to vote.  They start from a position of disagreement about which tradeoff is worth accepting.  

In the world you’re familiar with, such a conversation would consist of several hours of back-and-forth statistics and dismissals, ultimately leading nowhere.  A and B are different, though, and the conversation between our two traveling companions will lead us through… the Midmorning Zone.  

A: Voting restrictions are making it harder for people of color and other underprivileged communities to vote, which is diminishing their voice in government.  We should remove the requirement for voter ID.  

B: I disagree with your conclusion on what we should do about the problem.  Removing voter ID requirements will make it harder to make sure people are not committing voter fraud by voting more than once, voting when they’re not eligible, or casting unauthorized votes for other people.  

A: I don’t think that happens very much.  

B: You say that, but how would you know?  Especially if we aren’t set up to tell whether voters are eligible in the first place?  

A: Okay, fair point.  I still think it’s more important to make sure we aren’t getting false negatives for eligibility–people who should be able to vote but whose votes are labeled ineligible–even if it means we get a few false positives for eligibility: votes that shouldn’t be counted but are counted anyway.  

B: I’m not sure I’m willing to take that same risk, but I respect your position.  I really don’t want to prevent eligible people from voting.  Is there something else we can do that helps eligible voters vote without lowering security standards so that ineligible votes might go through?  Could we make it easier for people to get IDs?  

A: Now that you mention it, that would help people a lot.  There’s all sorts of things people need photo IDs for.  Driving a car, boarding an airplane, opening a bank account, applying for certain welfare benefits, buying medication, seeing a physician…  There’s a lot of problems people without photo IDs face other than not being able to vote.  

B: It sounds like an important problem to solve, then.  So what prevents people from getting IDs?  

A: Part of it is the cost.  Not only do people need to pay for the ID card itself, but if they don’t already have the required identification documents on hand to get the ID card (such as a birth certificate and social security card), they need to pay to obtain those as well.  

B: We can set up programs to waive the costs for people in need.  Anyone who already qualifies for some sort of welfare should be automatically approved.  If a person can’t legally drive or open a bank account, that’s going to contribute to keeping them in poverty.  

A: That sounds great.  The other obstacle is the logistics.  Sometimes it’s too far to get to the office that issues the IDs.  Sometimes the nearest office isn’t open at a time that works for people.  Most of the time there’s a significant wait.  

B: That seems unfair to me.  Bureaucracies should cater to the needs of the public, not the other way around.  If people can’t get to the Department of Motor Vehicles for a state ID card, then we need to set up stations in the places where people need them the most.  Hiring and training local people to do the work will create jobs, at least in the short term, and computerizing the whole thing will help us prevent fraud.  

A: This project will cost money, you realize.  Are you willing to help pay for it with taxes?  

B: Sure, it’s an investment in helping people become independent by empowering them to build up their own personal infrastructure.  We don’t want them to remain poor.  

A: I’m glad you see it that way.  Anything worth doing usually takes deliberate effort.  Economic and political exploitation can only end with mindful investment in people.  And if we get people set up properly, we won’t have as many people who need welfare, which I expect will make you happy.  

B: Yes, and with the money and independence the ID will afford them, they will be able to keep their kids from getting caught in the same situation as well.  

A: I’m glad that we were able to figure out a constructive approach that makes the situation better for everyone.  

Me, your host: This conversation was brought to you by the Foundational Toolbox for Life, a system of basic concepts for framing problems and solutions constructively.  A and B have just demonstrated its use here as part of the Visionary Vocabularies project to help people go beyond arguing over tradeoffs and instead work together to build a world we can all be proud of.  

As the Toolbox becomes more widely used, conversations such as the one you just read will become our reality, and lead the way out of the confused, belligerent, flailing dawn of humanity into a thoughtful, neighborly, confident 9:30 or 10 AM.  You, too, can be part of ushering in the end of humanity’s protracted and painful beginning.  Tell your friends about your visit here and let them know that the planet Earth is late for brunch… in the Midmorning Zone.  

Law Enforcement: Defend or Defund?

You are about to enter another dimension, a dimension not only of extremes and balances but of constructiveness.  Welcome to a journey into a wondrous land limited only by the mind.  Your next stop: the Midmorning Zone

Dadee-dadoo dadee-dadoo dadee-dadoo dadee-dadoo…

Their names are unimportant, so we’ll call them A and B.  These two people find themselves in an internet discussion, about what to do about law enforcement oppressing the public it claims to serve.  What’s more, A and B start from a position of disagreement about what is actually happening and what should be done about it.  

In the world you’re familiar with, such a conversation would consist of several hours of back-and-forth insults and contempt, ultimately leading nowhere.  A and B are different, though, and the conversation between our two traveling companions will lead us through… the Midmorning Zone.  

A: The police are abusing their power and need to be stopped.  I’ve sent you some links to examples of police oppression.  That should show why this is an important issue.  

B: I agree that we should make sure that police don’t abuse their power.  I may not agree with some of the specific examples you cited, but don’t need those examples to convince me, so there’s no point in arguing over them at this time.  I’m aware of enough other examples that I think it’s worth putting effort into stopping and preventing the abuse of police power.  What did you have in mind?  

A: Thanks, I appreciate that.  I think we need to dissolve the police, and put that funding towards more constructive community organizations.  

B: I like the idea of funding constructive community organizations.  I would support doing that regardless of what happens to the police.  

B: I do feel that the police serve a necessary purpose in preventing turmoil.  I don’t think there’s a way around that.  All large societies throughout Earth’s history have had some sort of law enforcement institution, so I am skeptical that they’re inherently oppressive.  

B: Now that I say that out loud, though, I guess that depends on how you view society in general and our society’s laws in particular.  Regardless, I agree that with better community support, crime should decrease and the police force may not need to be as large or powerful as it is now.  

B: Having other ways of responding to human emergency situations also sounds good.  I’d like to discuss what those community institutions should look like in a bit.  

B: First though, since it will probably always be important to be prepared for actual crime, I suggest we also figure out ways to promote ethics and accountability within the police as an institution in order to make sure that they don’t abuse their power.  That will also help as an immediate step while we’re setting up those other community institutions.  

B: If we could get the police to be reliably ethical, what would you expect that to look like?  

A: First, I would expect that police officers would put more effort and skill into deescalating situations.  Right now it seems like they don’t often try a diplomatic approach because they’re comfortable resorting to power plays.  They may see it as easier and safer, even if it’s more likely to lead to violence, and they can get away with it.  

A: It doesn’t help that people are expected to obey police orders.  In theory obeying law enforcement is important because it makes enforcing the law easier, but it’s a problem when people get used to being obeyed.  In many cases they can come off as contemptuous of the people they’re interacting with, like they’ve already decided the people are guilty of something but haven’t yet settled on what it is.  

A: Second, and related, I would expect them not to stop and question people just because they have a hunch the person might have committed a crime.  I would expect them to act like servants to the people, and not like nobles who can give commands.  

A: Third, I expect them to be held to stricter standards of responsibility.  Qualified immunity should not protect officers from failing to exercise good judgment and deal with people civilly.  When a police officer is found to have done something wrong, they should be held accountable and face consequences, so other officers know they can’t get away with it.  

A: The police also need to compensate those they harm with incidence of incompetence.  Maybe they’ll learn to double-check their methods if they have to fix their own mistakes.  

A: I understand it’s a dangerous job and they feel they have to look out for one another, but if an organization doesn’t hold its members accountable for doing a good job then it’s failing its mission.  Their duty to the public comes before their duty to each other.  

A: Fourth, we need to get rid of civil asset forfeiture, where police can take people’s money and property without having to prove it was earned illegally.  

A: Fifth, they should also definitely end quotas on crimes.  There’s no way police officers can look out for the wellbeing of the public if they’re also feeling pressure to find enough crimes to meet some number.  That means they have an incentive to make sure crimes don’t go down, which is the opposite of what they’re supposed to do.  I know that every profession has an incentive to remain necessary, but you don’t see the fire department telling people to leave greasy dishcloths on the stove.  

A: Sixth, and this may be a more controversial idea, I would also expect them to not bother trying to book people who are too poor to follow certain laws, like having their cars repaired.  The police should not participate in keeping people trapped in the cycle of poverty; those people have enough problems without being literally punished for trying to survive while being poor.  

A: All of that is a decent start, but there are probably more issues I haven’t thought of off the top of my head.  

B: Those sound good to me for the most part.  I’d like to get together to research how best to define and implement those policy changes.  

B: Regarding the last one, I can see that a person would feel resentful of law enforcement if it didn’t seem realistic to stay in compliance with all laws.  I think there are better solutions than just ignoring violations of the law, though.  We could change the law, if the law isn’t realistic in the first place.  Or we could figure out why people don’t feel they can follow the law and help change their situation to make it easier.  How does that sound?  

A: That sounds good, and I think it ties in with those community institutions we were going to come back to.  

A: Just off the top of my head, we should have counselors and mediators for addressing mental health and interpersonal issues.  Like I said before, if you expect people to obey you all the time, you might not put much effort into working with people’s emotions.  Even if police still go after crimes, keeping the peace should be done by a different set of people.  

A: I realize dividing what we think of as “police work” into two specializations means we’ll have to have a separate set of people covering the same areas, but I think the results will be worth it.  I’d like to see what we can really do when we make a serious effort to resolve disturbances of the peace without violence.  

B: That sounds like something we can experiment with in different communities.  That way we can learn how to do it effectively before rolling it out on a large scale everywhere.  We could test it right away by having a few peacekeepers go into “disturbance of the peace” situations with police hanging around as backup, and see how they do.  I’m on board with that.  

A: Great!  I think people who disturb the peace will also be less likely to escalate the situation if the person they’re talking to doesn’t have the option to arrest them or shoot them.  

B: I’m skeptical of that, but if people are willing to give it a test run, I think it’s worth a try.  If it doesn’t work, we’ll just think of something else.  

A: Peacekeepers, or whatever we’ll call them, aren’t the only institution that will help.  After all, people don’t only commit crimes of passion.  

A: Poverty is another huge driver of crime.  People often commit crimes because they’re trying to get more money than they could get legally.  Maybe in some cases they just want to be rich because consumer culture has taught them that material luxury is more important than community.  

A: In many cases, though, they actually need money that they cannot get, because they’re not receiving the support and training and opportunities they need to earn it.  Sometimes they deliberately commit crimes to get that money.  Or, as I mentioned before, they might incidentally break laws simply because they can’t afford to comply with all regulations as they try to stay afloat in their job and lives.  

B: So why aren’t they receiving the support and training and opportunities right now?  

A: Maybe prejudice is a factor. Maybe the education system has failed them. Maybe poor nutrition.  Maybe lack of community character and skill building.  Maybe the economy is creating artificial scarcity by concentrating jobs into a handful of overworked people and excluding everyone else.  Mostly likely a combination of all of the above.  

B: That’s a lot of things to fix.  

A: That’s why people are saying to use the money from law enforcement.  Why should we be spending so much more money on arresting people and incarcerating them than we spend on ensuring they don’t need to commit crimes?  

A: You already said that you were reconsidering the assumption that law enforcement wasn’t inherently oppressive because society’s laws weren’t inherently oppressive.  I’d argue that all societies big enough to use law enforcement were built by the powerful to keep the masses under their thumb, but we can discuss human history at a later date.  

A: Right now, in this country, if lawmakers and those who vote for them really cared about lifting people out of poverty, they’d be spending more money on it.  I believe they want people to remain poor and deprived of nourishment and education.  However, I’ll save my opinions about why they want that for when we start talking about how to influence lawmakers or replace them with ones who will invest more in ending poverty.  

B: It definitely seems like we’re not spending enough money on making sure children are set up for success.  I can see how that would lead to an oppressive status quo, which the police would then help maintain simply by doing their job.  

B: That said, I’d rather not remove the stabilizing influence of law enforcement and hope that the status quo destabilizes into something good.  Even though it will take more effort, I’d certainly prefer to make the whole system empowering rather than oppressive.  But if we try to spend money on ending poverty, how can we know if something we spend it on will help?  

A: Some approaches are obvious, like making sure schools are well-funded and well-staffed, and paying teachers more so that more skilled people will go into the profession.  As for the other ways we can empower children to succeed, we can test out proposals in different communities like we talked about doing with the peacekeepers.  Figuring out what methods to try is another conversation that people all over the country should be having.  

B: Sounds good to me.  I’d like to be part of that conversation as well!  

Me, your host: This conversation was brought to you by the Foundational Toolbox for Life, a system of basic concepts for framing problems and solutions constructively.  A and B just demonstrated its use here as part of the Visionary Vocabularies project to help people understand each other and work together to build a world we can all be proud of.  

As the Toolbox becomes more widely used, conversations such as the one you just read will become our reality, and lead the way out of the confused, belligerent, flailing dawn of humanity into a thoughtful, neighborly, confident 9:30 or 10 AM.  You, too, can be part of ushering in the end of humanity’s protracted and painful beginning.  Tell your friends about your visit here and let them know that the planet Earth is late for brunch… in the Midmorning Zone.  

Dadee-dadoo dadee-dadoo dadee-dadoo dadee-dadoo…