While reading a torrent of coverage over the recent Supreme Court gun control ruling, I again wondered why I wasn't benevolent dictator, since I think (as I often do) I have a simple fix to the problem. Of course this has nothing to do with software, but as people in software know, product managers are always certain they have the answer. So here goes:
1. If someone buys a gun, they are responsible for any crimes committed by that gun, unless the ownership is legally transferred to someone else.
2. If a gun owner loses a gun, they also loose their license to carry guns, forever.
Those familiar with the gun debate will quickly point out, But what about the millions of guns still on the street?
OK, two more rules:
3. If someone turns in a gun to police, and relinquishes their right to ever own a gun, they get $1000.
4. If someone "refers" an unlicensed gun that they are aware of, they get $500. per gun. That's right, point police to a house with 10 unlicensed guns, get $5000. if the guns are recovered.
Fear of punishment and market forces will take over, and the world will become a lot safer, with no freedoms compromised. Or at least so it seems from my sofa.
So what does this have to do with software? Nothing. Except that leveraging people's selfish impulses to help others, and empowering people (while keeping them accountable) is what the next wave of software is all about, and these seem to be good ways to get a lot of things done.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
For the last 13+ years, I have helped create a company (Plumtree), expanded it's vision after being acquired by BEA, and decided to start fresh after the recent acquisition by Oracle.
I've served many roles in engineering and recently run Product Management.
I've served many roles in engineering and recently run Product Management.
Now I've joined a little known German software company called SAP. I think together we're going to do some great things.
5 comments:
I was thinking you could replace 'guns' with 'cars', and 'crimes' with 'damage to society'.
Or just make one generalized edict, wherein the true societal cost of your gun/car/electrically heated sauna/etc is passed back to you.
(4) is a little creepy, man. Can kids get the reward for turning in their parents?
Agreed on the generalization. Appliances, for example, should be on a long term lease to homeowners, and the manufacturer should deal with the hulking mass when it is no longer suitable for its purpose.
"Internalize the externalities" was a good mantra for the environmental movement in the mid nineties, but it is so damn hard to do right. But I think that making the responsibility for goods, in general, well known through their lifecycle is a good way to make true costs of the good known.
Thomas Jefferson clearly stated in subsequent writings regarding the 2nd Amendment that it is not only the right but the duty of every able bodied citizen to not only own a weapon but the best weapon they are capable of owning and to be proficient in its use. The intent being that we, the people, would have the ability and the duty to stand up to tyranny should the government get out of hand.
Not to be at odds with you but your proposal is really only applicable to non-law abiding persons in possession of firearms (typically those illegal in nature).
I, for one, am just glad the Supreme Court finally reviewed the matter and took a stand albeit 9-0 would have been better than 5-4 as that decision can be more easily altered in the future.
Believe me, I understand the concern of the government getting out of hand, and I completely agree. What I'm advocating, however, shouldn't be at odds with your position: owning anything should come with the responsibility for it *throughout its lifecycle*... whether a gun or a refrigerator or a car.
Since we are roughly on the same page, what about the following considerations per rule:
1. If someone buys a gun, they are responsible for any crimes committed by that gun, unless the ownership is legally transferred to someone else.
(I believe that is pretty much the case already unless the gun is stolen. After all, you wouldn't want to be held accountable for someone committing vehicular manslaughter after they stole your car would you?)
2. If a gun owner loses a gun, they also loose their license to carry guns, forever.
(Sort of the same principal as the theft of your car. Should you forever loose your license to drive a car if it is stolen? After all, no one typically "loses" a gun unless they want it to get into unlawful hands.)
3. If someone turns in a gun to police, and relinquishes their right to ever own a gun, they get $1000.
(I'd say that they should get say a few hundred and if they have a clean record, should keep their right to own a gun. Giving up a constitutional right should pay a lot more than $1000.)
4. If someone "refers" an unlicensed gun that they are aware of, they get $500. per gun. That's right, point police to a house with 10 unlicensed guns, get $5000 if the guns are recovered.
(Sounds eerily like pre-WWII Germany and the brown-shirts. This one would take a lot of rules and checks/balances to be a viable option. Otherwise we end up in a not too friendly place.)
I'm definitely with you about personal responsibility though as we, as a whole, in current times are woefully lacking in that regard.
Post a Comment