Weekly Technetic #24: In defense
Technetism as a philosophy is, for the most part, politically neutral. Yes, there are a great many political ideologies that are incompatible with our tenets, but that is their fault, not ours. Communism is explicitly anti-human, for example, and its implementation has led to the deaths of tens of millions, as well as financially and mentally impoverishing billions. Fundamentalist theocracies such as that of Saudi Arabia fail the technetic test due to their inability to allow for their citizens—subjects, really—to seek eudaemonia in their own way. Most of the "mainstream" political positions, however, can find a home in our school of thought.
Despite this "big tent" mentality, the traditional American system of a decentralized constitutional republic limited in power stands above the rest as the preferred way of organizing a society in the political sense. This is due to two major factors.
First, I am an American, a patriot who has studied our history and watched the decay of our institutions in real time. The Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence are remarkably simple documents that leave little room for doubt, yet some seem determined to misread them intentionally. I'll get back to that in a moment, as it is the focus of this post. For now, just know that the American system is the one I have the most experience with, but I also firmly believe that it is the best choice to allow for the individual to seek eudaemonia while also contributing to society and the human race at large.
Second, technetism draws from the same Enlightenment ideals as the Founding Fathers. In that sense, it is only natural that they share certain facets. They have a genetic relationship that extends beyond the Thirteen Colonies to the English and Scottish—more than the French—Enlightenments. The illustrious thinkers of those times and places gave us the concept of individual, inalienable, and inherent rights. For the American patriot, those are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. For the technetic, they are life, liberty, and the pursuit of betterment. This isn't jingoism; it's pragmatism. By casting technetism in the light of something familiar to all, it becomes far easier to explain and detail.
Today, the most contentious of the natural rights enshrined in the Constitution is that of self-defense. Specifically, the right to keep and bear arms. A large segment of the American population believes that it shouldn't be a right at all, that the state should hold a monopoly on methods of defense; most Western countries have already gone too far down this road, and one look at the "quarantine camps" of Australia will tell you where that leads.
Where this intersects with technetism is in the matter of eudaemonia. All humans have certain rights. One of those is to live, which is why, for instance, the technetic is implicitly opposed to the death penalty and abortion. (Note that this is different from saying those things should be illegal. That is a political stance, while ours is a moral one.)
We also have the right to pursue our own path of personal growth, regardless of the wishes of those in positions of authority. This is the technetic view of liberty. It is not the anarchic notion of doing whatever one wants, but a rational rejection of coercion and dogma. We choose what makes us happy. As long as it doesn't stop others from doing the same, it is not morally objectionable.
A gun is a weapon, yes. It is a tool whose intended use is to maim or kill. Does that make it evil? No. A tool itself is amoral. Only the use of that tool can be considered to have moral relevance.
Thus we come to see the Second Amendment under a technetic lens. Guns—and other weapons, let us not forget—are tools; they have no moral "weight" themselves. Tools are human creations intended to make human lives better in some way: easier, safer, longer, or more fruitful. Family, property, and the self are worth defending, so we must use tools for that defense, and that usually means weaponry of some sort. That defense will, in almost all cases, be against anti-human actors, because those who respect humanity are not likely to kill, steal, or seize
In short, defense is necessary to allow us to strive for eudaemonia in a world full of those who seek to prevent it. Since we will never live in a technetic utopia, some of these threats will come from those who claim dominion over us. Or, to put it in simpler terms, sometimes we must also protect ourselves and our loved ones from our government.
For these reasons, among many others, technetism, while not explicitly supporting any political ideology, falls very much in favor of gun rights. Indeed, the technetic is entirely justified by logic and reason to support an expansion of those rights beyond what even so-called maximalists would advocate.
The text of the Second Amendment is perfectly clear to anyone who cares to read it. The technetic belief in the inalienable and inherent right to protect oneself, one's loved ones, and one's property from those who seek to destroy rather than create, that this right is necessary for personal and societal growth, that takes somewhat more deduction, but the conclusion is no less inescapable.