C’è una marcata somiglianza tra l’istruzione online e la controversia che ha contrapposto Uber e Lyft ai taxi tradizionali. Il controverso servizio di condivisione delle corse offre qualche vantaggio competitivo rispetto ai vecchi taxi. Ma è solo un passettino, anche se nella direzione giusta; possiede ancora le stesse caratteristiche del sistema proprietario e monopolistico a cui cerca di fare concorrenza. Il controllo è ancora nelle mani di grosse aziende con sede fuori dalle città servite, aziende che, grazie ad applicazioni brevettate, fanno la cresta agli autisti e ai clienti che operano nel loro precinto. Il prossimo passo consiste nel liberare Uber e Lyft da questa prigione con sistemi cooperativi e di condivisione delle corse open-source.

L’istruzione online, con o senza profitto, rappresenta un miglioramento marginale rispetto alle tradizionali università. Ma come Uber e Lyft è bloccato tra due mondi, modellato sul sistema scolastico superiore tradizionale piuttosto che su un vero sistema di rete, open-source, ancora tutto da edificare.

Coursera coordina l’uso del materiale dei corsi con “istituzioni associate” (le università tradizionali) per offrire un curriculum più o meno tradizionale. Udacity adatta la sua offerta alle richieste, in termini di specializzazione, della “industria tecnologica” (ovvero, dei dipartimenti aziendali risorse umane). I principali corsi online non si spostano dal modello postbellico basato su una collaborazione tra grandi aziende, il mondo dell’istruzione tradizionale e lo stato. L’obiettivo centrale è la formazione delle risorse umane così da adattarle ai bisogni delle grandi aziende in termini di capacità tecniche e predisposizione al lavoro. Milioni di persone vengono così dirette a soddisfare le richieste delle aziende di Fortune 500 (le 500 più grosse aziende d’America, es), inflazionando il mercato delle credenziali (e il debito dei laureati) necessarie ad ottenere un lavoro. Questo produce una sovrabbondanza di offerta di lavoro vocazionale-tecnico in quei settori in cui c’è più richiesta, producendo così un calo dei salari. Il risultato è che chi ha studiato per acquisire quelle capacità lavorative si ritrova ad avere poco potere contrattuale davanti alle grandi aziende.

Una libera istruzione, se vuole essere genuina, deve smettere di versare il vino nuovo nelle botti vecchie, che si tratti di preparare materiale corsistico che si adatti al modello universitario convenzionale, o di preparare curriculum che rispecchiano le richieste delle grandi aziende. Queste ultime, assieme ai loro dipartimenti per la gestione delle risorse umane, fanno parte di un mondo economico morente. Alcune potrebbero sopravvivere per qualche decennio ancora, sfruttando aiuti e normative protezionistiche fornite da uno stato sempre più fallimentare e vuoto. Ma sono obsolete, in attesa del decesso, e col passare degli anni avranno sempre meno importanza nel mondo economico.

Il futuro dell’impiego passa dal lavoro autonomo, dalle piccole imprese cooperative (microimprese da garage, hackerspace e permacultura), dall’informazione p2p e dal lavoro a progetto. In quest’ultimo caso, dove le capacità personali e il capitale umano rappresentano la fonte principale di valore aggiunto, e dove gli strumenti fisici, un settore economico in crescita, sono alla portata di tutti, i lavoratori precari potrebbero unirsi e formare una versione cooperativa delle attuali agenzie capitaliste di lavoro interinale; o unioni di professionisti; o gilde in grado di offrire protezione, certificare la professionalità dei lavoratori e negoziare le condizioni con i datori di lavoro.

Serve un nuovo modello di istruzione basato su un sistema volontario, ad hoc, di credenziali cumulabili, un sistema slegato dallo stato, guidato dai bisogni delle piccole cooperative e dei lavoratori associati destinati a dominare la nuova economia.

Ovviamente, laddove il materiale dei corsi è protetto gli operatori dell’istruzione open-source dovranno rimuovere le protezioni Drm che bloccano l’accesso ai video e ai libri di testo.

Quello che abbiamo oggi è un sistema universitario morente, creato da uno stato morente per servire gli interessi di un’economia corporativa morente. Lasciate che i morti seppelliscano i loro morti.

Traduzione di Enrico Sanna.

There’s a strong parallel between online education and the controversy over Uber and Lyft versus medallion cabs. The controversial ride-sharing services offer some cost competition to the old licensed taxi services. But they’re only a modest step in the right direction; they still embody the same proprietary, monopolistic characteristics as the old model they’re competing against. They’re still controlled by corporate headquarters outside the cities they serve and, thanks to patented apps, skim tribute off the drivers and customer who operate within their walled gardens. The next step is to jailbreak Uber and Lyft themselves with cooperative and open-source ride-sharing services.

Online learning, whether for profit or not, is a marginal improvement over traditional universities. But like Uber and Lyft, it’s still stuck between two worlds, modeled on the legacy higher education system rather than emerging as the real networked, open-source thing we need to build.

Coursera coordinates its course materials with “partner institutions” (brick and mortar universities) as part of a more-or-less traditional curriculum. Udacity tailors its offerings to skills demanded by the “tech industry” (that is, corporate HR departments). The big online course providers are firmly rooted in the post-WWII corporatist partnership between big business employers, the higher education establishment and the state, with the central goal of processing human resources to fit the needs of corporate employers in terms of both work skills and work attitudes. By processing millions of people to supply the labor demands of Fortune 500 companies, the higher education system simultaneously inflates the credentialing levels (and debt peonage) required to get work, overproduces the forms of vocational-technical labor most in need and thereby drives down the price, leaving those who learn such skills with minimal bargaining power versus large corporate employers.

Genuine free education needs to stop pouring new wine into old bottles, whether it be designing free course materials to fit the conventional university degree model, or designing curricula to fit the needs of corporate employers. Corporate employers with Human Resources departments are part of a dying economy. Some of them may struggle on for decades, as an increasingly bankrupt and hollowed out state still manages to provide them with sufficient subsidies and regulatory protection to survive. But they are obsolete and waiting to die, and will encompass less and less of the total economy as time goes on.

The future of labor is self-employment, cooperative work arrangements in small shops (e.g., garage micro-factories, hackerspaces and makerspaces and Permaculture operations), peer-production of information, and project-based work. And in the kinds of project-based work where skills and other human capital are the main source of value addition and physical tools are affordable — a growing part of the economy — existing precarious workers are likely to create new cooperative versions of existing capitalist temp agencies, or freelance unions and guilds that provide insurance, certify skills and negotiate with employers.

We need a new model of education based on voluntary, ad hoc, stackable credentialing outside the state accreditation system, driven by the needs of the small cooperative shops and networked workers who will dominate the new economy.

And of course where  online course materials are proprietary, the open-source education folks need to start hacking the Digital Rights Management on their videos and textbooks.

What we have now is a dying university system, created by a dying state to serve the labor needs of a dying corporate economy. Let the dead bury their dead.

Translations for this article:

• Italian, È Ora di Liberare l’Istruzione Online.

We never notice when the transformation occurs. We don’t even fully realize it until years into our rampage. But one day, we wake up and look into the mirror, and the face peering back at us is unrecognizable.

On Friday, Gawker posted the result of a nearly yearlong investigation into the arrest of a student at Bartlesville Senior High School in eastern Oklahoma. The arrest, approximately four hours before the Newtown shooting, grabbed headlines and shocked the nation — then faded into white noise, like most stories not actually dripping in blood seem to do. The subject: 18-year-old Sammie Chavez, who told friends the day earlier that he was thinking about committing a school shooting.

The article itself is a stunning piece of longform shoeleather journalism by Camille Dodero. It profiles Chavez, his family, and the town of Bartlesville in great detail. It is a heavy indictment of our entire system — education, justice and otherwise.

At the time of his arrest, Sammie Chavez had an ancient .22 with a broken firing mechanism that he had purchased for $15; no ammo; a small amount of marijuana; and several “therapeutic” journals he had been asked to keep by psychiatrists. His bail was ramped up to $1 million from an initial warrant estimate of $200,000, and he faced 10 years in prison on felony conspiracy charges. More than 20 Bartlesville residents submitted victim-impact statements aimed at increasing his sentence to life in prison. Oklahoma state legislators sought to codify that sentiment into law, writing multiple bills to change the mandatory minimum sentence for the crime of thinking nasty thoughts. Children as young as 13 could be tried as adults if any of these bills pass.

Remember, no one was hurt. In very real terms, no actual crime was committed.

The press called Chavez a monster. He was 18, barely holding it together in school, and had a terrible support structure at home. When he mused aloud that he wanted to commit this act of violence, his friends did exactly what they were supposed to do: Friends told someone else; someone else told their parents; parents called the school; school called the cops; cops got a warrant. No questions asked, no offers of help, psychological or otherwise. Throw the book at him. Instamonster. Gold stars and commendations all around.

According to Dodero, “[Chavez] learned about the Newtown massacre from a television in Washington County Detention Center, the Bartlesville jail where police brought him after his arrest. Seeing the news reports, he broke down crying so badly that guards changed the channel.”

Chavez received his sentence in November: 30 months in prison, a $5000 fine and a year of evaluations from the Oklahoma Department of Corrections. People from Bartlesville want him locked up longer. Future cases will reflect the “nuance” prosecutors gleaned from dealing with someone who apparently planned a school shooting without having access to the resources for — or the desire to actually carry out — one.

And the rest of us roll on in our “meaningful discussions” about gun control, funding for mental health facilities “that could house someone like Chavez,” violence in popular media, etc. We lament the fact that the system currently in place didn’t notice Chavez before. According to the profile at Gawker, he was a seemingly “perfectly normal teenage delinquent” leading up to his arrest. The entire infrastructure is rotten at the foundation, but according to its rules, everyone did exactly what they were supposed to here, down to the last smug pundit.

We lock our monsters away because we don’t like the fact that we can glean similarities to ourselves from them. We look at their behavior and think, “god, what a terrible human being, why would they do such a thing?” but who among us hasn’t had so much as a terrible thought? Even in passing? We just don’t want to face this.

Earlier this year, I wrote that the occurrence of gun violence was a wicked problem, that it could not be answered simply. I said that even though people would still be raised to love cops and soldiers, praise the wars and accept more casual violence, we could commit to an absurd answer to this wicked problem: we could struggle to teach our own children to reject killing, to reject domination over each other, to reject that systemic violence. It isn’t working. The state, feeding on the anguish of every (domestic) parent who has ever lost a child to the barrel of a gun, is simply going to react more violently every time something like this happens.

It all just needs to stop.

An adjunct faculty member is a part-time professor (who may work full-time hours) hired by contract each semester. As employment is contracted out per semester, adjuncts do not have the ability to obtain tenure, are often paid less than full-time faculty and many have no benefits. Currently, adjuncts make up the bulk of educators at colleges as they are cheaper for schools to employ – a result of reduced investment in the “public” education system. Adjuncts have the educational responsibilities of full-time professors and equivalent expertise in the discipline they teach. Work experience and advanced degrees are considered before a hire is made meaning adjuncts are highly educated and talented people.

Adjunct professors are the product of two acute problems facing higher education these days. The first, alluded to earlier, is decreased state sector investment in education. The decline in funding has made it difficult for schools to hire full-time employees. Instead of struggling to keep programs open and funding full-time staff, many schools have opted to let contract employees go when need be. Though the US population would rather see tax revenue invested in education, than say military spending, this means nothing to the political elite who would rather shell out stolen dollars on pet projects (Pork!) or increased military spending. To make matters worse, college administrative costs have skyrocketed because of the expanding size of management personnel – all to the detriment of academics. On campuses today there are seemingly never-ending construction projects and administrative programs. The problems associated with this featherbedding and reduced government revenue are further exacerbated by money generated by endowments and student loans that encourage a cost-plus markup approach to spending.

Building on cost-plus markup, the second, and yet another manufactured crisis of the political elite, is that higher education has become another bubble. Students unable to find work due to the ongoing economic downturn have started competing for higher degrees. With rising education costs, however, these degrees are much more expensive than they are actually worth. There are more graduates than there are jobs that require their advanced qualifications. In many cases not only is there no household income, but many folks are also buried in student loan debt. Students with graduate degrees have traditionally trusted the academy or its resources to find jobs with good wages. This is no longer the case.

In today’s (captured) market, advanced degrees are no longer the tools for growth and prosperity they used to be. Increased tuition, increased fees, the burden of student loans, rising conference costs, rising membership costs to (insert academic discipline here) Society of America and even the high costs of journal publications are now all imposed on a struggling public. This is a great indoctrination technique: People buried in debt do not have a lot of time or energy to invest in challenging the status quo, there are bills to pay and mouths to feed. This creates a situation where only those with the correct amount of capital, or access to the correct inner circles, are (largely – there are exceptions) allowed to play the game. Education fits the neo-liberal economic model: Push the public out-of-the-way and serve special interests. The modern academic model looks to be more about publishing, obtaining grants and patents or making connections than it does fostering an environment for learning, inquiry and creativity.

As I have argued before: When education spending is cut and when corporate influence impacts research, one can clearly hear the calls to privatize (fully allowing only those with capital to pursue higher degrees) or the calls for stricter regulation and “teach to test” policies (fully allowing for the indoctrination of students). Both solutions championed by state officials directly impede social capital and reinforce adherence to preconceived rules – they are ridiculous. Furthermore, it keeps teachers from “owning” their classroom. Teachers must ensure their students meet the demands of the state or private entity that truly chooses the instruction of the classroom – their jobs depend on it. Teachers no longer have agency over their own labor. This is what Kevin Carson has called The Real Curriculum: Please the status quo and create docile, obedient, indoctrinated future employees burdened with debt.

Despite all of this, there is resistance. With falling communication costs new orders are emerging across the market, education included.

With the emergence of new information and communication technologies individuals can take active roles in their community’s development. This trend leads to increased transfer of authority and responsibility from centralized institutions to local neighborhoods. This engages and empowers everyday people. Information technology has allowed us to question who has authority and decision-making power, why power is distributed the way it is and what implications it has for society and future generations. As a result of such inquiry, decentralization has become a main theme. In the case of education, democracy in the classroom is again on the rise.

Information technology is allowing us to build new foundations across the political divide. Beyond the dominant paradigm of “teach to test” and prepare for the workforce, many educators are looking to teach in ways that inspire critical thinking. Though still in its infancy, this democratic shift in education can empower students and promote values of free association, co-ordination and altruism. It can inspire students to work for their community’s well-being, as opposed to the requirements of a corporate state apparatus. The current Service Learning movement, where for course credit students have the option of community service, is a great example of this encouraged pro-social behavior. In other words, decentralized education will work to enhance our natural capacities as human beings and intellectual growth will be cultivated.

Communication technologies have created a market for people to work around traditional power structures. Educators are easily able to share their concerns with each other and the rest of the public because of growing social networks. Through the means of communication, consensus reveals the many problems with our mainstream educational systems – be them government or private schools. The freed market is demanding a paradigm shift. This promotes the libertarian position of individualism, the notion that we should assume more responsibility for our daily lives. If nothing else, we are now constantly exposed to the failures of the corporate state. In the individualist tradition, governance is being scrutinized. People are now talking about problems associated with their communities, workplaces and society. As a result, incredible causes are being organized around, federations are developing, movements are progressing and it is all happening because we simply talk. The traditional libertarian position is clear: Individuals can better represent the concerns of their communities, instead of a single powerful person, group or organization.

In regards to education, Kevin Carson notes:

The idea is not to eliminate higher education, but to eliminate the mass-production model by which it is organized: Transporting people to a central location with expensive physical plant and a bloated administrative bureaucracy in order to process them into human resources. Network technology, with its ability to move information cheaply rather than moving people, offers the potential of an alternative that creates its own educational modules if needed (from scratch using modern tools and techniques) …

Falling communication costs are allowing us to build anew within the shell of the old. Take for example the Massive Open Online Course, or “MOOC” phenomenon. MOOCs are courses offered online, for free, that are open access and have unlimited participation. MOOCs offer all of the standard materials of traditional classrooms (videos, readings, lectures, exercises, etc…) but also user groups that help build communities among students and their educators. The variety of this free educational resource is also incredibly vast.

Imagine the possibilities here. “Garage” physicists, for example, being able to take classes they could never afford online – for free. Massive human communication systems allowing them to freely associate with online social networks that educate and inspire and totally void of traditional power structures. The creative, innovative potential for our society is astounding as Sebastian A. B. explains:

The individual is the basic functional unit of innovation. Institutions provide resources — capital, human and fixed. But free people can achieve a lot with very little.

The magnitude of creative productivity is most strongly correlated with the number of researchers, and less with the talent of the individuals involved, and fortunately the positive feedback loop (or virtuous cycle) of technology continues to lower the cost of instrumentation. That is, happy accident probability is proportional to time invested rather than just skill.

But what of the traditional campus? Information technology and low communication costs have tremendous potential to allow for the empowerment of classroom instructors. Indeed, the use of emerging communication technology and information science is causing increased transfer of power from centralized authorities to locally based institutions. The internet is being used as a tool for educators to ban together, begin social movements and to once again gain autonomy for their classrooms. Network technologies are being used to create a diversity of support platforms for instructors and other temporary/freelance workers. For instance, collective bargaining is again on the rise and spreading insurance, legal aid, professional development opportunities and even locally controlled scholarly publishing. The internet revolution has already brought some liberty back into traditional campuses. With the spread of information and mass social communication this trend will continue exponentially.

So just what does this mean for us adjuncts who love to teach? Simply put, education is in the beginning phase of an evolution. With information technology, harnessed by the public, a more decentralized society is on the way – liberty is winning, naturally. Our libertarian society will of course emphasize education. Human beings long for creative labor; it is a biological universal. No longer will education be a tool to prepare us for the workplace. Education will become the life-long pursuit of our interests and creative ingenuity. We are programmed with curiosity and the desire to learn and communicate. Public consensus will naturally cultivate a new academic culture and those who aspire to teach will be in demand.

Apoiar leis de controle de armas de fogo significa dar ao governo mais crédito do que ele merece. O governo é uma instituição administrada e integrada por pessoas com seus próprios interesses e personalidades. São essas pessoas mais perspicazes, mais competentes, ou menos tendentes a intensificar violência do que a pessoa média?

No mínimo, os interesses e incentivos institucionais se conjugam com a dificuldade de responsabilizar os agentes do governo para tornar estes mais perigosos. As leis que eles fazem cumprir tornam-nos ameaça ainda maior à segurança pública. Funcionários do governo com armas de assalto entram nas casas das pessoas se sobre estas recair suspeita de terem a posse de medicamento não aprovado, de não terem pago o banco, ou se acontecer de morarem no endereço errado. Se tais funcionários do governo se sentirem ameaçados durante seu acesso de adrenalina, tenderão a atirar nos aterrorizados residentes e em seus animais de estimação — e a sair impunes. Não me sentiria nada seguro sabendo serem essas as únicas pessoas que podem comprar legalmente pentes de 30 cartuchos.

Dispersar as ferramentas de defesa pessoal entre os indivíduos e comunidades consensuais torna a vida mais segura, ao reduzir o poder dos (e na verdade a necessidade percebida de) protetores oficiais militarizados.

Obviamente, nem todo mundo representa a média, e a violência cometida com armas de fogo por cidadãos privados é algo muito sério. Entretanto, a preponderância da violência é amiúde sintoma de desequilíbrio de poder, usualmente compelido pelo governo.

Disparos em massa ocorrem amiúde, mas não sempre, em instituições de hierarquia rígida, onde um invidíduo tornado impotente pelo sistema vê na violência agressiva meio de obtenção de poder por meio de conquista. Tais motivações podem ser limitadas por meio de posse disseminada de poder baseada no respeito pela autonomia, e pelo cultivo de responsabilidade em vez de obediência.

É verdade, nem todo disparo em massa encaixa-se nesse padrão, e infelizmente é duvidoso que qualquer sociedade consiga impedir inteiramente assassínios. É possível, porém, reduzir o número de vítimas. A melhor maneira de fazer-se isso é por meio de redução da desadaptação institucionalizada e de estímulo para que as pessoas da comunidade assumam responsabilidade pela defesa, em vez de recorrerem às — e esperarem ajuda das — autoridades do governo. Ter armas poderosas com grandes pentes poderá ajudá-las a conseguir isso. Afinal de contas, os departamentos de polícia mencionam cenários de atirador ativo(*) para explicar por que precisam daqueles tipos de armas de fogo enquadradas nas proibições de armas de assalto. (* active shooter – O Departament of Homeland Security [Departamento de Segurança da Pátria/Departamento de Segurança Interior/Departamento do Interior] dos Estados Unidos define como active shooter [atirador ativo] indivíduo ativamente empenhado em matar ou tentar matar pessoas em área confinada e povoada; na maioria dos casos, o atirador ativo usa armas de fogo e não há padrão ou método para escolha de suas vítimas. Ver Wikipedia.)

A maior parte da violência letal cometida por cidadãos privados ocorre em áreas que padecem de discriminação institucionalizada. Segregação econômica não oficial leva certas áreas a terem as piores escolas, as forças policiais mais hostis, os menores níveis de investimento, e o maior ônus de perigos ambientais. São lugares onde grupos raciais minoritários, vitimados pela intolerância dos poderosos, vivem. Os Panteras Negras reconheciam isso; seu programa de andar ostensivamente exibindo armas era parte de seu programa de melhoramento e exercício de poder pela comunidade.

Hoje, a política do governo — levada a efeito pelo monopólio dos que defendem o controle das armas do povo por meio de armas de assalto — torna os bairros em campos de batalha na guerra às drogas, enquanto a política local tenta isolar o problema em distritos escolares específicos. Os jovens são assediados e obscena percentagem de adultos é encarcerada, sufocando o potencial para desenvolvimento aberto e pacífico da comunidade.

Os Panteras Negras originais não eram perfeitos, mas permanecem instrutivos. Certamente ganharam atenção. Rebeldes no sopé de todo desequilíbrio de poder podem provavelmente aprender lições valiosas da experiência deles.

Enquanto tornamos a sociedade mais compassiva — o que não pode ser feito sem o cultivo de respeito pela liberdade e a autonomia — deveríamos respeitar os direitos a armas de fogo de todos os indivíduos responsáveis. É de surpreender que uma pessoa de 18 anos possa votar e servir na instituição militar, mas não possa portar uma arma de mão para defesa própria, especialmente por no passado ter sido comum estudantes rurais trazerem armas para a escola e as deixarem na sala do diretor para poderem caçar antes ou depois das aulas. Se as armas forem vistas como algo conhecido mas perigoso, em vez de fontes misteriosas de poder proibido, provavelmente serão manuseadas mais responsavelmente.

A alternativa a movermo-nos rumo à liberdade é tornar a sociedade mais parecida com uma prisão, com paramilitares fortemente armados montando guarda enquanto aqueles considerados “desajustados” ficam sujeitos a exames de  “saúde mental.” O caminho para maiores responsabilidade, responsabilização e compaixão é encontrado na persecução da liberdade.

Artigo original afixado por Darian Worden em 18 de janeiro de 2013.

Traduzido do inglês por Murilo Otávio Rodrigues Paes Leme.

Iedere steun aan wetgeving aangaande het verbod van wapenbezit betekent dat daarmee de overheid meer respect krijgt dan zij in werkelijkheid verdient. De overheid is een institutie welke wordt bestuurd en bevolkt door mensen met hun eigen belangen en persoonlijkheid. Zijn zij werkelijk slimmer, meer competent, of minder geneigd tot de escalatie van geweld dan het gemiddelde individu?

Op zijn minst zijn institutionele belangen in combinatie met de moeilijkheid om overheidsdienaren ter verantwoording te roepen – niemand is ooit verantwoordelijk, wij hebben het immers steevast ‘met zijn allen’ gedaan – ingrediënten welke de overheid gevaarlijker maken. De wetten die door hen worden uitgevaardigd maken hen zelfs tot een nog grotere bedreiging voor de publieke veiligheid. Gewapende wetsdienaren doen invallen in de huizen van mensen als deze worden verdacht van het bezit van niet-goedgekeurde medicijnen, hun bankier niet afbetaald hebben, of op het onjuiste adres verblijven. Mochten deze wetsdienaren zich tijdens hun adrenalinerush bedreigd voelen, dan zijn zij gemachtigd hun wapen af te vuren op de doodsbange bewoners en hun huisdieren – en komen daar mee weg. Ik voel mij zeker niet veiliger in de wetenschap dat zij de enigen zijn die legitiem wapens en munitie kunnen aanschaffen.

Verspreiding van de middelen tot het verdedigen van lijf en goed onder vreedzame individuen en gemeenschappen maken het leven veiliger door het terugbrengen van de macht van (en vermeende noodzaak daarvoor) deze gewapende beschermers.

Uiteraard is niet iedereen ‘gemiddeld’, en vuurwapengeweld gepleegd door burgers is beangstigend. Maar in de meeste gevallen is de initiatie van geweld een teken van onevenwichtige machtsverdeling, meestal afgedwongen door en in het voordeel van de overheid, omdat deze beschikt over het geweldsmonopolie.

Grote(re) schietpartijen vinden niet altijd, maar wel vaak plaats in instituties met een rigide hiërarchie alwaar een door het systeem machteloos en murw gemaakt individu het plegen van geweld beschouwt als middel tot machtsuitoefening door verovering. Dergelijke vanuit frustratie ontstane motieven kunnen worden beperkt door het wijd verspreiden van individueel recht, gebaseerd op respect voor autonomie en het cultiveren van individuele verantwoordelijkheid ten faveure van afgedwongen (blinde) gehoorzaamheid.

Toegegeven, niet elke schietpartij voldoet aan dit patroon, en helaas valt te betwijfelen of welke samenleving dan ook moord volledig kan voorkomen of verbannen. Maar het is wel mogelijk om het aantal slachtoffers te verminderen. De beste manier om dat te bereiken is om de afstand tussen burger en de handhavende macht te verkleinen door het aanmoedigen van de bevolking tot het nemen van de eigen verantwoordelijkheid voor zelfverdediging, in plaats van het bellen naar – en wachten op – wetsdienaren. Het recht op wapenbezit kan daarbij helpen en het wapen ter verdediging fungeert tevens als afschrikmiddel tegen de initiatie van geweld.

Het meeste dodelijk geweld dat gepleegd wordt door burgers vindt plaats in gebieden die gebukt gaan onder geïnstitutionaliseerde discriminatie. Economische segregatie leidt ertoe dat achterstandswijken de slechtste scholen krijgen, het laagste niveau van investeringen en de zwaarste last waar het gaat om gevaren voor het milieu. Het gaat hier meestal om plaatsen met een hoge concentratie van kansarme minderheidsgroeperingen, officieus gediscrimineerd door de machthebbers.

Het hedendaagse overheidsbeleid – uitgevoerd door de geweldsmonopolist wie wel wapens mag dragen – transformeert stedelijke gebieden tot slagveld van drugsoorlogen terwijl lokale bestuurders het probleem trachten te isoleren tot bepaalde wijken, waardoor het potentieel van een open en vreedzame ontwikkeling van de samenleving wordt gefrustreerd. Tegenstanders van deze onbalans kunnen hiervan leren – van links tot rechts.

Terwijl wij streven naar een samenleving van de menselijke maat – die niet bereikt kan worden zonder het cultiveren van respect voor vrijheid en autonomie – zouden wij ook respect moeten hebben voor het recht op wapenbezit voor alle verantwoordelijke individuen. Het is verbazingwekkend dat nog maar sinds kort het recht op verdedigen van lijf en goed enigszins verruimd is – maar je hebt wel pech gehad als de crimineel opponent gewapend is. Als handvuurwapens worden beschouwd als gemeengoed maar gevaarlijk, in plaats van mysterieuze bron van verboden macht, dan zullen zij mogelijk met een veel groter verantwoordelijkheidsbesef worden gehanteerd.

Het alternatief voor meer vrijheid en veiligheid is een samenleving die meer weg heeft van een gevangenis met zwaar bewapende paramilitairen als bewakers, waar ‘niet aangepasten’ in aanmerking komen voor ‘geestelijke hulp’. De weg naar meer verantwoordelijkheid, rekenschap en menselijke maat wordt daarentegen gevonden in het streven naar vrijheid.

Originele artikel geplaatst op 18 Januari 2013 door Darian Worden.

If anything, institutional interests and incentives combine with the difficulty of holding government actors accountable to make them more dangerous. The laws they enforce make them an even bigger threat to public safety. Government workers with assault weapons break into people’s homes if they are suspected of having unapproved medicine, haven’t paid off the banker, or happen to live at the wrong address. If those government workers feel threatened during their adrenaline rush they are liable to shoot the terrified residents and their pets — and get away with it. I wouldn’t feel any safer knowing that these were the only people who could legally buy 30-round magazines.

Dispersing the tools of personal defense among peaceable individuals and consensual communities makes life safer by reducing the power of (and indeed the perceived need for) militarized official protectors.

Of course, not everyone is average, and gun violence committed by private citizens is frightful. But the prevalence of violence often signals a power imbalance, usually government enforced.

Mass shootings often, but not always, take place in institutions of rigid hierarchy where an individual made powerless by the system sees aggressive violence as a means of empowerment through conquest. Such motivations can be limited through widespread personal empowerment based on respect for autonomy and the cultivation of responsibility rather than obedience.

True, not every mass shooting fits this pattern, and unfortunately it is doubtful that any society can entirely prevent murder. But it is possible to reduce the number of victims. The best way to do that is by reducing institutionalized dislocation and by encouraging people within the community to take responsibility for defense rather than calling on — and waiting for help from — government officials. Having powerful weapons with big magazines can help them accomplish this. After all, police departments point to active shooter scenarios to explain why they need the types of guns targeted by assault weapon bans.

Most deadly violence committed by private citizens occurs in areas suffering from institutionalized discrimination. Unofficial economic segregation leads to some areas getting the worst schools, the most hostile police forces, the lowest levels of investment, and the largest burden of environmental hazards. These are usually places where minority racial groups, targeted by the bigotry of the powerful, live. The Black Panthers recognized this; their gun-toting swagger was part of their community improvement and empowerment program.

Today government policy — carried out by the people gun control advocates trust with assault weapons — makes neighborhoods into drug war battlegrounds while local politics tries to isolate the problem into particular school districts. Youth are harassed and an obscene percentage of adults are imprisoned, stifling the potential for open and peaceful community development.

The original Black Panthers were not perfect, but remain instructive. They certainly got attention. Rebels at the bottom of every power imbalance can probably learn valuable lessons from their experience.

While we make society more compassionate — which cannot be done without cultivating respect for liberty and autonomy — we should respect the gun rights of all responsible individuals. It is amazing that an 18-year-old can vote and serve in the military, but cannot legally buy a handgun for personal defense, especially since it was once common for rural students to bring guns to school and leave them in the principal’s office so they could go hunting before or after school. If guns are viewed as familiar but dangerous instead of as mysterious sources of forbidden power, they will probably be handled more responsibly.

The alternative to moving toward freedom is making society more prison-like, with heavily armed paramilitaries standing guard while those considered “off” are subject to “mental health” inquisitions. The path to greater responsibility, accountability, and compassion is found in the pursuit of liberty.

“Gun Control: Who Gets Control?” on C4SS Media.

Translations for this article:

• Dutch, Wapenverbod: vrijbrief voor geweldsmonopolie.
• Portuguese, Controle de Armas de Fogo: Quem Obtém Controle?

How about instead of more lockdowns, crackdowns, and clampdowns, we go for schools that are less like prisons and allow people who are willing and able to responsibly defend themselves to do so? Too bad that won’t fit into the dominant narrative that says the federal government must decide for us and enforce their decision.

Last spring, Christie responded to the charge that teachers aren’t being compensated for their education and experience by saying they “don’t have to do it.” This is certainly true, but let’s look behind the talking points to the economic implications of this attitude. The perception of inadequate compensation and little appreciation will dissuade people who have invested in education from entering the profession of teaching. Investment does not equal competence, but there is a correlation between focusing on an area and expertise, which in a rational system would make a teacher more valuable. Higher pay means more people competing for jobs, which allows for a better-qualified work force. Satisfaction of teachers can result in a better experience for students who have little choice but to go through the school system.

This does not mean that public education is a good thing. It is actually one of the biggest problems in America. Government schools do little to develop the character of the individual in any meaningful way. They promote the idea that important learning is done by assignment. Personal development that conflicts with the system’s forcible monopolization of the student’s time is often regarded with suspicion. Completing the process of schooling, which is based on fulfilling requirements made by increasingly distant authorities, passes for a thorough education. The reason why people learn more in college than in high school is not because high school has prepared them, but because college students are allowed more initiative, participation, and choice in their learning experience. Their ability to exercise these faculties is often in spite of the enforced irresponsibility of their high school experience.

More money will not solve the problem. As Bob Bowdon’s film “The Cartel” demonstrates, money often doesn’t make it to classroom. But that is the necessary product of a system in which it is dictated from the top-down that things are to be done in a certain way, and political domination hinders the creation of alternatives. “Quality education” to this system means more expensive infrastructure and administration. For teachers, taking initiative to deliver a great service to students often means defying the system’s rules, as John Taylor Gatto describes from personal experience as a public school teacher. Schools teach to grade level according to curriculum, not to students’ ability according to their learning styles. Interest is stifled by rigid procedure and by supervised separation from the outside world. Performance is measured in standardized test results, not in eagerness to learn or capability in applying knowledge. The school system’s rationality is that of a political program, not of a sector built on satisfying demand through consensual arrangements.

But people like Chris Christie don’t really want to solve the problem — they just want it to be a cheaper problem. They still want a system that teaches people from before they can read until they reach voting age to salute the flag, follow the bell, and satisfy the demands of authority. They just want to implement what they consider a more cost-effective program of control.

There are better solutions in liberty. The control of government institutions should be shifted away from centralized power structures to people with immediate understanding and interest. Greater choice in education and more student participation in directing the learning process should be created. It is also important to foster culture that values individual character over certified economic adequacy. Public employee unions, which are political organizations with members afraid to publicly speak out against official policy, ought to be remade into, or replaced with, workers’ organizations in which a spirit of mutual aid and solidarity prevails over the goal of securing political privilege. Instead of looking to the boss for protection from the market, workers should shape the market to value humanity over hierarchy.

Dictates from the top down do not figure into any meaningful solution. There are difficult changes to make, but a free society is worth the effort.

Officials from Pennsylvania’s Lower Merion School District in got in trouble earlier this year when it was revealed that they had used school-issued laptops supplied to students to photograph them at home. Wired.com coverage of the case quotes a legal filing that states “thousands of webcam pictures and screen shots” were taken of students in their homes, sometimes in bed or partially dressed (“School District Allegedly Snapped Thousands of Student Webcam Spy Pics,” April 16, 2010).

Although a civil suit against the school is still open, federal prosecutors have pled insufficient evidence to establish criminal intent.

Every now and then, a turf battle between bureaucrats or the need to keep up appearances of legitimacy leads to criminal proceedings against professional tyrants. But it’s not surprising that the federal government won’t be prosecuting these e-peeping bureaucrats.

Schools have an established role in government efforts to police behavior. High school students are expected to submit to total surveillance through police dogs, locker searches, cameras, and mandatory drug tests. As shown by the suspension of teachers for discussion the rights of citizens during police encounters, any obstacle to authority getting what it demands is viewed as an offense (see my Center for a Stateless Society commentary Is Learning How to Flex Your Rights Inappropriate for School?).

Creating an environment of submission for youth teaches unquestioning obedience early in life, which in turn makes it easier for federal bureaucrats to get away with whatever intrusive measure of the moment the megalomaniac-industrial-complex might fancy.

The computer surveillance case presents a literal depiction of government’s nature, that of Trojan Horse. The purpose of government is to enable some to exert power over others. When rulership is the ultimate end, all intermediate ends become subject to increasing the power of authority.

Buried in every government program, even one ostensibly centered around providing school laptops to students, is the incentive to use it to gain power. If the administrator wants to find new ways of controlling his wards’ behavior, he can use a school technology program to spy on them in their homes like the creepy busybody he is.

Government will not intentionally limit itself. It is up to us to limit its ability to govern.