patrick.net

Since this topic is on libertarianism, let me have one more post here. Harry Browne, one of my favorite writers and the libertarian party presidential candidate for 1996 and 2000, dies yesterday. RIP.

For anyone open-minded, I would highly recommend his simple and straightforward books like "Why government doesn't work". A must read for anyone interested in politics whether you agree or not.

Personally, his "How I found freedom in an unfree world" is the best self-help book I have ever read. It really changed my approach to life. It clearly describes the various traps that get into, mentally and how to break free from them and live free.

If you are open-minded and like reading, consider checking out these books from the library. Also recommended is his website http://www.harrybrowne.org and the articles therein. I wonder who will maintain it now?

It's a bit discomfiting to think that a major nerve center for the U.S. military has such a poorly implemented defense shield.

newsfreak Says:

"My husband often jokes that the stock market in the 70’s went up 3 points, down 2, what was so interesting about that?"

Am I the only one that hates it that the financial news networks always just say "the Dow was up 7 today" (assuming that we remember what the Dow was yesterday). News stations don't say "it was 6 degrees warmer today than yesterday" or "there were three more deaths in Iran today than there were yesterday"...

Unalloyed,

My father was also in defense; specifically in electronic control and guidance systems. With the Pentagon, they probabaly simply didn't activate the countermeasures. They easily could have intercepted a commercial aircraft, even flying low. But only if they are armed by someone. They don't leave these things sitting there on automatic launch, or there'd be a lot of innocent private aviation accidents and outright false signal launches.

Different Sean Says:

"Nobody wants to be over-governed, but there is a role for sensible governance. No other high income OECD country allows freedom of gun ownership like the US, and no other country reaps the shocking whirlwind of hospital treatment costs, deaths and maiming, accidental discharges, ready availability of lethal weapons, living in anxiety and fear, suffering grief and loss, etc."

I always find in interesting how liberals want to blame "guns" for violence since the real reason is so un PC that they can never say it (and I will only say it among close friends on in an anonymous forum like this). I know it sounds like a NRA bumper sticker, but "guns" have nothing to do with violence; it is violent "people" that cause violence. The reason that the US has much more gun violence than say our friends in Northern Europe is that we have a different mix of "people" in the US. I got my first gun at 6 and I was a slow fire pistol champion at 16. I have never pointed a gun at another person or animal (I don't hunt, but don't mind that others hunt). I spent a month in Switzerland and did a lot of shooting over there since every man in the country is "required" to own two guns (and most are very interested in talking about guns). There is very little violence in Switzerland since the Swiss "people" are not very violent (when was the last time you read about a violent crime in the US by a person of Swiss decent?). I also spent a very scary month in Africa (I went with a girlfriend who is a member of Doctors without Borders). There are a lot less guns per capital in Africa than Switzerland but there is a lot more violence since the African "people" are a lot more violent. The mainstream press does not even to begin to cover the extent of the violence in Africa where I can't even count the number of dead bodies I saw. We were robbed at gunpoint twice by people that didn't even care that we were there to help others. I bet most people don't need to think long or hard to remember the last crime they read about committed by a person of African decent. In the U.S. when you pull out the gun related murders by Americans of African decent (and adolescent white kids on Ritalin that kill themselves and others) you realize that guns are not the cause of violence...

It's intesting that WTC7 collapsed in a controlled demolition, which takes weeks and months to plan and prepare, and Larry Silverstein of Westfield America said 'we decided to pull it' the same day by way of explanation. And an explosion that 'just went off' in the smallest of the buildings, WTC5?6?, leaving a huge crater in the middle. And the Secret Service agent who was killed in WTC7 'helping to evacuate it' when it was empty. (Not encouraging the miserable fires to look a little more ferocious, of course.)

Not to mention that $1bn worth of asbestos rectifications that were needed on the twin towers. And that Westfield America had taken out a new insurance policy on the towers only 6 weeks earlier, with some special new clauses concerning terrorist attack, at $3.5bn cover per attack, claiming $7 bn for 2 attacks, which would allow them to rebuild anything out of cash, no borrowing required. And the WTC towers had lost money for years, ruining the commercial rental market in NYC through subsidies. The 1970s design took poor advantage of some of the best potential views in the world, possessing sliver-thin windows.

And no burning skyscraper has ever collapsed in history, especially in such a short space of time. Kerosene burns at less than 1000 F, steel melts at over 1500 F. And these were massive beams, in a properly constructed building. My own father is a steel metallurgist who conducts failure investigations in just such cases - interesting how quickly the beams were cleared up so no investigation could be performed for future skyscraper designers to think about. And what about the metallurgist working for the Underwriter Investigation company who claims it could only have been sheared by thermite charges? And the firemen confidently approaching the building to put out the fire after assessing it, only to see it collapse? None of their training had ever prepared them for that possibility, because it was next to impossible. And why did the 'wrong tower' collapse first?

FDNY fire fighters remain under a gag order (Rodriguez vs Bush) to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a 9/11 gag order.

What about the bouncy Pentagon grass and the faked Photoshop photos of the cleanup and the supposed 'triage' areas? What happened to the 6 tonne engines of the '767' which would made holes on either side of the actual hole? And the confiscated video footage? Why has the Pentagon only released 5 blurry 'security' photos in sequence instead? And the conflicting early witness reports specifying smaller planes? And the fact that Guiliani made an early media reference on that day to an attack on the Sears building in Chicago that never happened?

And why, of the 19 supposed 'Muslims' identified by the FBI, half of them are still alive and well, victims of identity theft? Why was only 1 passport conveniently and quickly found in the wreckage of the explosion over PA (with wreckage spread over 8 miles)? But the plane 'vaporised' when it hit the ground, supposedly - 'swallowed up' by the ground! And how could they do the alleged DNA tests on all the vaporised people from the Pentagon to positively identify them? And what existing DNA record of the 'passengers' did they have to compare against?

And what about the 100 or so timely scrambles and interceptions of off-course planes that happen every year ordinarily?

etc etc

I always find in interesting how liberals want to blame “guns” for violence since the real reason is so un PC that they can never say it (and I will only say it among close friends on in an anonymous forum like this). I know it sounds like a NRA bumper sticker, but “guns” have nothing to do with violence; it is violent “people” that cause violence.

There are plenty of African people who have emigrated, legally or illegally, to Europe, and they don't have problems to anywhere near the same extent with guns. Strenuous efforts are made by the police to remove guns from the community at every opportunity.

Switzerland is always used as an example, they're a very affluent, highly monocultural society with good levels of social capital. While it's possible to have high levels of responsible gun ownership, for whatever reason, that is clearly not happening in the US, is it?

Easy access to guns and a celebration of gun culture of course is going to increase the number of incidents. Why not legislate to have them removed instead? Then there's no problem, is there?

Opponents of gun control often use Switzerland as evidence that access to guns is not linked to crime or violence. They argue that since virtually all adult males are members of the army and have military weapons, there is nearly universal access to deadly weapons yet few gun-related problems in Switzerland. However, Swiss criminologist Martin Killias, of the Université de Lausanne, argues that the rate of households with firearms is actually comparable to that of Canada (27.2%). There is strict screening of army officers and ammunition is stored in sealed boxes and inspected regularly. Despite these controls, Switzerland has rates of gun suicide second only to the US among the countries Killias surveyed and a gun murder rate comparable to Canada's. Although firearms regulations in Switzerland is fragmented and controlled at the regional level, wide ranging reforms are being undertaken to establish national standards.

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/international.html

All conspiracy realists are called Sean, heh

Greetings all,

Sorry I haven’t been around for most of the day, but there are occasions that my employer requires me to perform actual work. ;-)

There are far too many comments directed at me for me to adequately respond, so I will instead offer up choice excerpts of what I consider to be excellent insights by other bloggers:

Randy H
Unfortunately, taxation is the only mechanism yet discovered which corrects for externalization of costs in a large society. Without taxation, some clever people figure out how to be productive at the cost of society; effectively shifting the costs of their endeavors onto others. However, with taxation other clever people figure out how to do the same. The notion is that, at least with taxation by a democratic state, there is some means to correct for tragedy of the commons. In a capitalist anarchy, there is not.

RMB
In an ideal world with rational people there would be no need for group organizations. But this is not an ideal world and people can not be islands, so there is a need for group organizations (governments). What those government do is another question. If they provide basic services (legal, defense, safety) they will fit with Libertarian ideas….
I would agree that all taxation is confiscation, but in some cases if the money is used for purposes that the individual can not accomplish alone (see above) and agrees to then it becomes a purchase transaction. I am paying for these services, which I value and would like to have someone else perform.

Requiem
It is my opinion that capitalism and democracy (is there a more “capitalistic” form of government besides an anarchy?) are inherently unstable. A democracy, it is said, can only exist until people discover they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. At that point, another form of government can “buy” its way into power. Similarly, unfettered capitalism will see the most effective operators build up monopolies, then find ways to maintain them.

Sunnyvale_Renter
Sadly, every health and OSHA etc regulation came into being literally over the dead bodies of one or more victims, often many of them….
If you want to get money out there in the economy and circulating, give it to poor people! Give people some breathing room, make college and tech training possible instead of a cruel dream, etc., and you’ll get tons of new companies and innovation.

MjrMjr
Here’s something to think about… Somalia doesn’t have a government right now. It ought to be a libertarian paradise, right? Without the encumbering, paternalistic hand of government, ought not free enterprise be flourishing? Free from any gov’t coercion, shouldn’t it be the best place in the world for an entrepreneur to be right now?
It may be fun for some folks to rant and rave about how evil government is but practically speaking, granting gov’t certain powers and the ability to tax us to provide a minimum level of common services is the *least worst* solution that any society thus far has been able to come up with.

Newsfreak
the real point of welfare
is to help those who cannot help themselves.
but the ideal point got
transformed in the real world
and then became generational entitlement.

Nomadtoons2
As far as Libertarianism and it’s perception in the US, I think that just as ultra conservatism casts a negative shadow on the republican party, Ultra Liberals do the same kind of damage to the democratic party. To be Libertarian is in itself a fairly abused word, where people these days seem to confine it to very exacting details. The same can be said for conservatism. The fact is that most people in this country are right in the middle, with liberal and conservative opinions. Unfortunately, these people usually don’t do much about voicing their opinions….
So what we have now are 2 vehemently opposed parties who will not listen to each other. This country must have BOTH liberal and conservative minds at work together.

SQT
Unfortunately we seem to be in a period where everyone is so polarized by their party. I also believe that most people sit somewhere between the conservative and liberal point of view. Most people I talk to anymore define themselves as “fiscally conservative and socially liberal,” I tend to define myself the same way. But for some reason, the two parties usually in power can’t seem to grasp this and continue to force a greater divide between them.

Max
(quoted from The Federalist):
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

Different Sean
Let me know the day you get transparency from corporations and government. Remember the big stick of government and the judiciary is what makes corporations accountable (often after the fact). The big stick in turn for government is the electorate…

Peter P
Criticism is not the necessarily the same as opposition.

They easily could have intercepted a commercial aircraft, even flying low. But only if they are armed by someone. They don’t leave these things sitting there on automatic launch...

Randy H,

That makes sense to me. It also leads me to ask why we have such equipment in place if not to respond to threats from commercial or private aircraft. Basically it tells me that the command structure needed to arm the equipment was not able to respond effectively. Not that I know anything about the business of protecting the Pentagon.

SQT,

I think many of us have learned an enormous amount from the contributions here.

But, if everyone carried a weapon (as was intended, even needed, in America) then the bad guys would think twice.

Very true. Instead of banning small knives on planes, all passengers can instead be given samuri swords. This way, no hijacking can occur.

And now California is having trouble killing a murderer (not Davis) who was found guilty in the late 70’s for killing an innocent young girl. The ... are coming up with any excuse they can to force California to not destroy this murderer.

That person should have been executed in the late 70's. We are still debating 30 years later? I really want to see capital punishment applied to more crimes. I am against lethal injection though. Execution is not a medical procedure. It should be held public to deter future crimess.

It's getting ugly for people. Even well paid people are starting to struggle
with finances. Many people are not experienced on how to cut back on expences. They think that they should eat less or shop at cheaper stores, but it's that big fat mortgage that's eating them alive. Pride will keep them from ever becoming a renter. They'd rather go down with the ship.

I see it in peoples faces that I deal with. Young people are starting to look old for there age. It's the stress from debt. I think it's going to get worse, much worse.

On the positive side, many of the 43 year old boomers(come lately's) will be fine because they are over-educated renters. They are in denial about actually being boomers themselves. There's nothing worse than a hypocrite, politically correct, crybaby.

Instead of banning small knives on planes, all passengers can instead be given samuri swords. This way, no hijacking can occur.

Realistically, it is useless to ban small knives. However, once passengers are told that a hijacked plane will be shot down, they will do everything possible to fight the hijackers if they are armed with such primitive weapons. Problem is solved.

Bombs are much bigger threats and they deserve more resources to defeat.

I dunno; we require licensing for driving a car, yet look how many people screw that up, and most practice every day!

I think people are not necessarily bad drivers. They are just over-confident and they think that it is possible to get away. We need more traffic enforcement, including automated cameras and monitoring systems.

I’m not sure arming everyone would help, since most people

1. don’t know how to react in emergencies
2. don’t know how to operate a gun

Very true.

Bap33, we share beliefs but I just cannot get myself to hate people with different views. (Except perhaps those who insist that foie gras has rights ;) )

All of this shall pass away and then things get really bad, then really good. I’m scared and excited.

This is what faith is all about, right?

Personally, I don't see how taking guns away from non-criminal non-insane Americans makes us "safer". As someone already pointed out, the police cannot be be everywhere at once. Sometimes you have no choice but be prepared to protect yourself and your family until the cavalry arrives. Can't think of a more effective home crime "deterrant".

California has some of the strictest (and most arbitrary) gun laws in the country, and yet --surprise, surprise-- criminals still manage to get all the guns they want --and they USE them. A lot.

Here they've outlawed above-10 round pistol magazines, detachable rifle clips, pistol grips, "Saturday Night specials", guns that just look scary (but aren't any more deadly than legal guns), you name it. Meanwhile, lawful gun owners have to go to absurd lengths in order to legally transport a registered weapon (unloaded, open breech, trigger lock on, bullets/magazines separate, in locked trunk/case, etc.). And of course, you're not allowed to actually carry a weapon where you might NEED it the most --in dangerous urban areas. Shit, I'm surprised they don't put your picture, name and address on a "gun perverts" website, so parents can know where all the "dangerous" gun-wackos live.

I can't recall the exact quote, but I think it was 19th century British explorer, Richard Burton (not to be confused with Liz Taylor's old flame) that said something like, "if all men carried firearms, we would all be gentlemen."

I also don't buy that the ONLY reason for the Second Amendment was to provide for a local police force/militia. The Founding Fathers had a deep distrust of governments and centralized power. They wanted to balance the equation a bit.

However... I do see the wisdom in requiring some form of background checks and safety training. And not giving guns to violent felons or the mentally ill. Guns should always be secured away from children as well.

Bap33,

Isn't there stuff in the Bible (NT) about everyone being your neighbour, turning the other cheek, loving your neighbour, and letting he who has never sinned cast the first stone? What happened to God being a God of love, and Jesus redeeming the sinner, etc? Isn't it just as bloodthirsty to punish someone by killing them as the murderer's initial act? (Which may have been a crime of passion or desperation.) Haven't you lowered yourself to their own moral level? You don't have a better response than that? Their killing is wrong, but your killing is right? I see why killing is so wrong now, it is so bad that it deserves to be punished by killing...

You seem to have a lot of hate-filled invective involving killing people a lot... Is that Biblical or Christian? Just curious...

So, if my Christianity is different from your Christianity, which one is 'correct', and which one should serve to inform the legal system?

Note that not many countries in the OECD still have the death penalty - just the US - so you are really saying that you want to bring back the system that you already have. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_penalty

Regarding gun control, the idea of everyone carrying a lethal weapon suggests that no-one can be trusted in your own society. What sort of society is that? A good one? Why would anyone be proud to live in a society where no-one can be trusted and you all have to have itchy trigger fingers? (Note that not many urbanites in America pro rata seem to believe this or want to carry a gun.) So, how is social order possible? Only at the point of a gun? Is that how deficient you are in social skills and conflict resolution?

A lot of arguments put up by people defending the status quo are straw man ones - they point to terrible fictitious murderers all around them as the need to own a gun, have the death penalty, etc. when in fact there is a great deal of social control around them that prevents such a thing from happening... Alternatively, I think if you set yourselves up to expect that everyone is a deranged gun-carrying murderer, you start to create such attitudes in more and more people...

HARM,

Why on Earth would you want to associate yourself with people who would question the propriety of laws against slavery and child labor? Libertarian ideas are naive — they just won’t work in any modern society. It’d be great if we didn’t have to worry about taxes and rules. It’d be great if I (but not you) could do exactly what I wanted all the time and no one could complain.

Sean,

This is an extremely narrow (and inaccurate) definition of Libertarianism. To be more precise, there is no ONE definition of Libertarianism. This is mainly what I was trying to get at with this thread topic. I don't believe you should have to check your code of ethics/morality at the door to remain a "true" Libertarian, even though many (if not most) people seem to believe this, including far too many Libertarians themselves.

We might as well go the fount (or is it the "Fountainhead"? ;-)) of all web knowledge, Wikipedia:

Libertarianism is a political philosophy[1] advocating the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property as long as they allow others the same liberty, by not initiating physical force, the threat of it, or fraud against others.

Doesn't sound too amoral or selfish so far, right?

Libertarians support an expansive view of liberty as the proper basis for organizing civil society. They tend to define liberty as the freedom to do whatever one wishes up to the point that one's behavior begins to interfere with another's person or property. At the point of interference, each party would become subject to certain principled rules for adjudicating disputes, generally accepting that one who has demonstrated a proven lack of respect for the rights of others should be subject to sanctions, including possible constraints on their freedom. They believe that liberty is the right of every individual, with some viewing it as a natural right.

Doesn't sound too anti-social or pro-slavery to me. Perhaps you are thinking of Anarchism: "an extreme version of libertarianism favoring no governmental constraints at all, based on the assumption that rulers and laws are unnecessary." That's not the type of Libertarianism I'd follow.

So in what branch of Libertarianism would I fit? Hmmm...

Some libertarians, including anarcho-capitalists, oppose all taxation, but most who self-identify as libertarians support minimal taxation as a "necessary evil"... This concept of minimalist government is found in minarchism.

Libertarians favor separation of government and economy; therefore, they also oppose all collusion between government and corporations, often termed crony capitalism, that would override the free market.

Libertarians oppose corporate welfare, which is seen as forcing individuals to subsidize unprofitable businesses through taxation. Likewise, they oppose trade barriers to maintain businesses who would otherwise fail in the face of international competition... Libertarians believe government spending and government programs should be eliminated unless they are directly involved in protecting liberty (such as national defense) and that private institutions should replace them wherever possible.

Well, that's probably about as close a match as I'm going to find between my own personal philosophy and a branch of Libertarianism. While it's not a perfect match, it's pretty good.

\hessesfan Says:

March 4th, 2006 at 2:34 am
dear all
read www.businessjive.com, the darkside of the looking glass.
excellent must read for all the bloggers here. gives an insight into the trading problems on wall street.
The state governement of utah and connecticut are suuing DTCC over this issue. BTW I think that this time the brokerage houses are fighting among themselves. and i read somewhere that lehmanbros are being heavily shorted.
full dislosure: this is not investment grade advice. i am neither long nor short paper stocks. i do own physical gold and putting it away in different countries.

Congratulations everyone
I successfully convinced one of my friends from buying a house for 600k in losbanos.

The point is, that many other countries have strong gun controls, low levels of illegal gun ownership, and do fine. There is no need to construct hypothetical societies where most people are 'disarmed', they already exist. They're called the high income economies of the OECD.

The United Kingdom has long had strict controls on firearms. Increased gun controls in the UK swiftly came into being following the March 1996 killings of 16 primary school children and their teacher, as well as 15 injured victims, by a local gun club member in Dunblane, Scotland. In response to the outcry following this massacre, a public inquiry was called which examined many aspects of firearms regulation in an international context. Subsequently, a new law was passed which banned 95% of handguns and required that the remainder (.22 calibre pistols) be stored at gun clubs. When the Labour party took power it introduced a total ban on handguns. Other regulatory changes are under consideration. The Report of the Inquiry, headed by Lord Cullen, into the Dunblane massacre declared that "The right to bear arms is not a live issue in the United Kingdom."

@Different Sean,

Regarding gun control, the idea of everyone carrying a lethal weapon suggests that no-one can be trusted in your own society. What sort of society is that? A good one? Why would anyone be proud to live in a society where no-one can be trusted and you all have to have itchy trigger fingers? (Note that not many urbanites in America pro rata seem to believe this or want to carry a gun.) So, how is social order possible? Only at the point of a gun? Is that how deficient you are in social skills and conflict resolution?

A lot of arguments put up by people defending the status quo are straw man ones - they point to terrible fictitious murderers all around them as the need to own a gun, have the death penalty, etc. when in fact there is a great deal of social control around them that prevents such a thing from happening… Alternatively, I think if you set yourselves up to expect that everyone is a deranged gun-carrying murderer, you start to create such attitudes in more and more people...

For someone quick to attack other people's alleged "straw man" arguments, you sure don't mind setting up a few yourself ;-). Oh, where to begin...?

First off, no sane pro-gun advocate would ever say "no one can be trusted" or that "everyone is a deranged gun-carrying murderer". You imply that all pro-gun rights advocates are somehow living in a permanent state of fear and paranoia --simply absurd.

And why do all gun owners necessarily have "itchy trigger fingers"? Talk about paranoia! This is the type of extreme rhetoric that I would expect from someone who is not comfortable handling or being around firearms. Which is fine --you don't have to own one. No one is seriously advocating requiring everyone to own or carry firearms. Even Burton was just exaggerating to make a point (that an armed public is not necessarily a more violent one).

And would confiscating all non-government owned guns make crime go away? Would a lack of guns make people more trustworthy or less prone to violence? I seriously doubt it. Life was far more violent and brutal during ancient times than in America today, and yet --amazingly-- there were no gunpowder based weapons.

@Different Sean,

Yes that wonderfully "effective" gun ban in Britain. How well did that work out? Let's see...

Overall, Britain now suffers from a higher violent crime rate than the U.S., and has reverted to its medieval status of being substantially more dangerous than most of the European continent. (Continental gun laws are generally more repressive than in the U.S., but more liberal than in England.) The lesson: More gun bans, more violent crime.

And yet there are signs that the public is finally awakening to the fact that the gun-prohibition movement can deliver hatred and repression, but comes up very short on public safety. The 1997 handgun ban is perceived by many as a failure, as gun crime has risen substantially since then.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel051403.asp

Different Sean,

Let me recap a couple of my earlier points:

Personally, I don’t see how taking guns away from non-criminal non-insane Americans makes us “safer”. As someone already pointed out, the police cannot be be everywhere at once. Sometimes you have no choice but be prepared to protect yourself and your family until the cavalry arrives. Can’t think of a more effective home crime “deterrant”.

...However… I do see the wisdom in requiring some form of background checks and safety training. And not giving guns to violent felons or the mentally ill. Guns should always be secured away from children as well.

Does this sound like the maniacal ravings of a machine-gun-toting lunatic with an "itchy trigger-finger"? Does my entertaining the very POSSIBILITY (but relatively low PROBABILITY) of being the victim of a crime at some point mean that I'm an anti-social paranoid freak?

C'mon, now. Extreme, irrational arguments can come from both sides of the debate.

Extreme, irrational arguments can come from both sides of the debate.

Hmm, I'm not making an extreme, irrational argument, just making international comparisons. The US statistics show that guns are much more likely to be accidentally discharged, killing or maiming one's one family members, or be used to assist in suicide, or to be used by someone under the onset of a psychiatric disorder (sane at the time they obtained the gun). There is also a huge grey market and black market leakage effect to criminals when guns are in such plentiful supply and the dream is 'for everyone to own one', stable or otherwise.

What are the statistics on effective deterrence? They demonstrate that actually instances of deterrence are very low, and that very often the presence of a gun escalates a situation.

Remember these are highly technical, expensive items prone to malfunction, but apparently absolutely necessary for the good civil society to exist...

Regarding the 'statistics' quoted from http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel051403.asp, I need to see those credibly verified - pro-gun types are known to heavily skew international positions to suit their domestic arguments. I've lived in both Britain and Australia for long periods, and I know the rates of personal assault etc have NOTHING to do with ownership of guns, because no-one used to carry a gun or had one at home for deterrence reasons anyway - it's just not in the culture of those people - the pro-gun people love to make these spurious connections based on statistical coincidences or other changes in law and order practices. For instance, the onset of a recession or depression may well lead to higher crime levels completely independently of any gun control laws passed at around the same time. One thing that I know is that the UK and Australian governments will not change their stance on gun bans in the foreseeable future, as they do not see commonplace gun ownership as part of a civilised society, and nor do the citizens.

hmm, if you shoot someone and deliver 'summary justice' of your own, aren't you in a lot of trouble? and is 'the world' nevada?

the point is that in modern society, most people have handed over the legal use of force to the police as an institution - this is Sociology 101. you shoot someone in the street at high noon at your own peril - in fact, the early gun-toters of the Wild West were put in place by concerned townspeople who had law and order problems and not enough sanctioned officers to carry them out at that time, expanding westward at a furious pace as they were. That was a very temporary emergency arrangement.

Remember that the 2nd Amendment was insisted upon by the state of Massachusetts in forming the Union mostly to protect against recurrent attempted invasions by the British to get their old colony back, being keenly aware of that possibility. I think the time and necessity for that has passed now, don't you?

The statistics show much higher deaths in the US due to gun ownership levels. If you're happy with that arrangement, fine. However, a US-style gun culture is an export the civilised world doesn't want...

What about the rights of citizenship? What does it mean to be a citizen of a country if there is no government worth talking about, and no social guarantees? Why defend a nation that is cruel and uncaring (in other words, how do you raise a loyal army of bitter, disaffected people)? What’s good about that? What about the role of the welfare state in delivering healthcare, education, pensions, law and order, justice, roads, hospitals and myriad other public and social goods to form a decent social settlement?

Different Sean,

I thought I had pretty much already addressed this is my opening topic and in the "what branch of Libertarianism do I belong to?" post above, but I guess I didn't get my point across very well. I don't believe in the narrow, stingy extreme view of Libertarianism as practiced by the "anarcho-capitalists".

I too believe that "good" government is not only possible, but should be the constant aim of a well educated and socially involved citizenry. Of course part of making "good" government IMHO involves setting reasonable limits to government size and power, while ensuring that government remains accountable to the PEOPLE and not just moneyed special interests. ALL Libertarians, not just "Left-Libertarians"/Minarchists are completely against "a corrupted self-serving government partial to propping up crony interests". We're on the same page, here, dude. ;-)

How is liberty even to be defined in a complex, highly technical, interdependent network of 280 million people surrounded by laws designed to protect property and the person?

Well, you've made a pretty good start at a practical definition of Liberty right there. Again, I don't subscribe the extreme, narrow view of Liberty = only property rights. Liberty also means a relative absence of coercion (as in, no slavery or child labor). Liberty also means government accountability to everyone, no just the super-rich and corporations. Liberty also means freedom from crime, fraud and abuse.

and didn't the founding fathers often have quite a lot of slaves? perhaps they were men of their time, after all... things have moved on since the 18th century...

Different Sean,

Please re-read my opening statement (thread topic) at the top:

Personally, I like the fact that I live in a country that prohibits overt discrimination based on gender, race, religion, etc. I actually like the fact that slavery and child labor is illegal. Having some of my tax money used for “social safety nets” for poor citizens (and legal residents) and the disabled/mentally ill –as long as it does not completely dis-incentivize industry– doesn’t bother me. Nor does prosecuting and jailing executives who cheat or poison consumers. Does this make me a Communist? If so, I guess a good percentage of Americans are commies too.

Does this sound like the opinions of a right-wing, crony-capitalist, unilateral war-starting, torture-condoning, autocratic neocon? If so, please let me know so I can send my resume to Shrub's desk right away. I need a better paying job. :mrgreen:

hmm, sorry HARM, I was responding to:

"Libertarians believe government spending and government programs should be eliminated unless they are directly involved in protecting liberty (such as national defense) and that private institutions should replace them wherever possible.

Well, that’s probably about as close a match as I’m going to find between my own personal philosophy and a branch of Libertarianism. While it’s not a perfect match, it’s pretty good."

not going back to original post which refers to social goods and necessity of govt in lieu of a superior proven option...

Remember that the US Congress is horribly corrupted in terms of soliciting contributions on an individual level from just about anyone, as Congressmen have to raise their own finances and hence become 'revenue addicts' (and want a cushy job after standing down, so become lobbyists in turn - they know they can skim $500K a year from that occupation). And witness the Jack Abramoff affair. But the corruption level is high compared to most other affluent OECD countries, so one country's dollar-chasing Congressmen's experience doesn't make by inference all govts corrupt to the same extent.

please let me know so I can send my resume to Shrub’s desk right away

Do you have a history of
1) lying a lot
2) being an oil executive
3) doing anything in Texas?

One occasionally contemplates a Faustian deal with the Shrub, but I ruled out becoming a govt adviser after talking to a couple of them and wondering when they were ever going to start telling the truth...

re the detention centres, check (google) the full connections between cheney and KBR and halliburton, and the numerous untendered contracts awarded to kbr/hallliburton since he became VP. it's the revolving door of politics and big business, and a clear conflict of interest. the media have done a number of stories on this. for instance, he left washington to become CEO of halliburton for 5 years, his only private sector service, then promptly went back as VP and received a $20 M payout from halliburton for his invaluable 5 years of service, and a large yearly pension on top of his VP salary. wish my severance pay was as generous...

It's too late for gun control. The bad people will have all the guns if the good people give their guns to the government. Criminals wont turn in their guns.
I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six.

Keep your guns people. Things are about to get bad. You saw what poor people did after Katrina. What if most of us become poor and then there's a disaster.

Different Sean Says:

"There are plenty of African people who have emigrated, legally or illegally, to Europe, and they don’t have problems to anywhere near the same extent with guns. Strenuous efforts are made by the police to remove guns from the community at every opportunity."

With few exceptions there are not many large communities of African decent except some in Britian (where there has been recent rioting) and France (where they recently burned a couple thousand cars).

"Easy access to guns and a celebration of gun culture of course is going to increase the number of incidents. Why not legislate to have them removed instead? Then there’s no problem, is there? "

What liberals don't understand is that "legislation" to remove guns will have no effect on "criminals". It is already illegal to kill someone or rob a bank and when I ask point blank "do you think that passing a law banning guns will get even a single gang banging criminal to drive to city hall and turn in his gun" the answer is always "no"

If Different Sean ever goes to rural Wisconsin or Eastern Oregon he will find an active "gun culture" where almost every man (and almost half of the women) is a gun owning hunter. There is almost no crime and many people never lock their doors.

HARM Says:

"Having some of my tax money used for “social safety nets” for poor citizens (and legal residents) and the disabled/mentally ill –as long as it does not completely dis-incentivize industry– doesn’t bother me."

I think it was Jack Kemp that said "Let's give the poor a safety net not a hammock". We should change all our crime filled housing projects in to job training centers where we get the poor off drugs and back in to the world. Right now many people stay on welfare and in the housing projects for their entire life...

pywiack Says:

"To me, pure libertarianism seems like a young, healthy person’s political philosophy. There are tons of libertarians on college campuses."

Unfortunately there have never been many libertarians/objectivists on college campus (or anywhere else). I met more republicans in college here in the Bay Area than libertarians.

Who is Kate Incontrera? The link to the author is broken. The "Gut Punch" article:

http://www.isecureonline.com/Reports/DRI/EDRIG105/

is not anything to be taken too seriously. I think that this is simply and indicator that the sharks are starting to move into the downside of the RE market. I don't need a crystal ball to predict that lots of self-promoting "experts" will make plenty of money claiming you can earn 700% returns in the RE downturn, all without risking any money. Seriously, this junk does serious discussion about the subject a disservice.