Posted by Alanius on 11/04/09

People fall apart in two camps: those that oppose gun freedom and those for it. It's very difficult to find anyone on the middle road.

Libertarians recognize that any order in society exists because the threat of justified aggression keeps most criminal aggression at bay. Non-libertarians see the fire-arm as the source of all societal chaos. They're both correct. Well, except that explosives and stabbing weapons can also contribute to chaos.

This paradox exists because there is a distinction between the responsible use of a gun and the irresponsible use of a gun. It is the responsible use of a fire-weapon that brings criminality down to a minimum. Correspondingly, it is the irresponsible use of a fire-weapon which is criminality.

Non-libertarians recognize this. There is hardly a single one that would propose a law banning all guns. They just want to eliminate the irresponsible use of guns. In their eyes, this is equivalent to banning all guns, except for the state. They trust the state and its officials to use them responsibly.

And here's what makes libertarians different: libertarians do not trust the state. And indeed, why should they? Hasn't history proved time and again that the state does nothing but trample on the rights of human beings, both in foreign countries and at home? And assuming noble intentions, hasn't the state proved time and again that it cannot be efficient in anything it does?

The question should not be, "why do libertarians support gun freedom?" The real question is, "why do non-libertarians support gun restriction?" And the answer is quite simple: they are blinded by their dogmatic trust in the state.

[original blog post]

Posted 11/04/09 PhilRidley London, United Kingdom

“You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” - Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto WWII Could it be, that Switzerland remains neutral during WWII because all Swiss men must own and learn to use a firearm? An army can only fight another army. Enemies, domestic and foreign are IMPOTENT against a decentralized, well-armed, well-trained militia. America's founding fathers knew this, and they learned it from their experience of Britain. The British Bill of Rights 1689 informed the 2nd Amendment. It says the following about standing armies and the right to bear arms, clearly, we now need a bill of rights to protect us against acts of Parliament that extinguish our natural rights, but you will get the gist: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp - That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law; - That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law - UK Gun club list from National Rifle association: http://www.nra.org.uk/common/asp/links/links.asp?site=NRA&cat=4

Posted 11/06/09 Bill01234 Woodstock, GA

Exactly why we need to get out of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Every man, woman, and child over the age of six is armed with an AK-47 over there.

Posted by Alanius on 09/03/09

Recently, while researching the intricacies of the Belgian health care system, I came across a comment I sort of disagreed with:

Andres VM posted: 02-12-2008 | 5:56 PM

I don't mind private healthcare clinics as long as they're "non-profit". Greedy right wing doctors only see dollar signs not their obligations to administer help regardless of income level. True, Canada has socialized healthcare..which means everyone is covered from the homeless to multi-millionaires...it's called a truely democractic healthcare system...because life is sacred.

The Americans will eventually have full universal healthcare...they already have a socialized pension system, socialized education system, and socialized fire and police departments. This has not lead America to communism as the right wing coporate media states all the time! Watch Star Trek...capitalism no longer exists! True democracy will only exist once we rid ourselves of the monetary system!

Since, for some reason, I couldn't reply on the website, I'll just put my blog to good use. Here's what I intended to reply:

read the rest here

Posted by Alanius on 07/27/09

Libertarianism is often called the most principled of all political philosophies. And it's true: libertarians learn to be very rigorous in the application of their core principles. This is what earns them their uncompromising nature as well as their reputation of being 'unrealistically extreme'.

Extremism is often considered to be a bad thing. But such a verdict is prejudice if it aims to apply to all cases of extremism, not to mention unreasonable. The cases must be assessed individually before one can decide whether rigorous application of libertarian principles is a good thing -- in that particular instance. Let's consider the example of a very specific form of fraud: misrepresentation in commerce, or selling something for something it's not.

read the rest here

Posted 07/27/09 BillNM Carlsbad, NM

"....but you'd be hard-pressed to find a libertarian who would argue to restrict sex between two consenting, adult siblings." I believe I would capitalize Libertarian since there are those of us who are for liberty but see our ethic based on the Creator's law as opposed to law derived from human reason. But, I take your point. Government prohibitions are too extensive and intrude into our personal lives. The monopoly of those in government who supposedly serve us have more to do with enriching themselves than doing justice.

Posted by Alanius on 06/16/09

Recently, I came across an intersting article in the news. Two men, the article reports, were piloting a home-built airplane when all of a sudden, the engines stopped. Thankfully, the pair was able to land the aircraft on the public road.

Even though he first thing that jumped in my eye was the line: "there was no damage or injuries involved," I still have the feeling there might be individuals who would offer this article as a powerful argument why we need government controls on the construction and piloting of home-built aircrafts. Maybe because that was how I came across it in the first place.

I don't think the fact that two people are able to so carelessly risk their own lives is what bothers these people. If that were the case, they would have to be equally strong proponents of government restriction on bungee jumping, mountain climbing, parachute diving ... They would even have to be in favor of government controls on unsafe sex.

The heart of the matter, I think, is that these fliers are able to jeopardize other people's lives and property by using possibly unsafe equipment. (Logically, then, the restrictionists must have no objections when these flight experiments are conducted in a completely secluded area, far away from any civilization.) In reality, they assert the following statements:

1. Governmental control and inspection of home-built planes makes them safer and more risk-free.
   This assumes that anyone, even if he is properly educated, can effectively become familiar enough with the intricacies of a particular home-built craft. The design of home-built instruments tend to be so far off the beaten track that accurate risk assessment by a third party is near impossible. The people who can best assess the risk of any construction or part are its creators. And in the case of flying machines, the creators have every incentive to assess the risks scrupulously. The only way to make home-built airplanes safer than they already are, is to ban them completely and hope that no one breaks the law. The problem with such a ban is that the government would have to put much more effort into upholding the law than it requires to make an air vehicle. And suppose the home-built-airplane-police finds their quarry, how will they determine it won't be used solely in remote areas -- which we had already agreed on should be allowed?
   And what about relatively new industries, for example spacecrafts? Should the state inspect those too, before launch? How can any one government official be smart enough to assess the risks of a particular shuttle if the leading experts on the field are building it?
2. Governmental regulation of pilot diplomas makes sure only competent pilots fly, and only with safe planes.
   This assumes that the two men from the article are not already pilots with legitimate diplomas. Doesn't it make sense to assume that someone who was able to home-build an airplane, pilot it and land safely in the case of an engine failure, has had some flight training? But suppose the article's hint that Kyle Davis was a pilot pertains only to his trip that made it to the newspaper and does not imply any prior training. He might not have a diploma, but would you say he is not a competent pilot? He crash-landed a failing airplane, without anyone getting hurt! But still, if you wanted to learn to fly, without having any experience, would you start with a home-built plane? Of course not. For that matter, would you start by flying above a densely populated area, devoid of any flat areas that might turn out useful in case of an emergency? I don't think so.
3. The cost of such governmental regulation would be smaller than the cost of the accidents that will occur without the regulation.
   We already argued that government action might not at all reduce the risks associated with the home construction of airplanes and the piloting of such airplanes. But for the sake of argument, let us assume it does.
   There are some obvious costs associated to such government intervention: taxes, and the dubious morality of the redistribution of risk costs. That the taxes used to pay for the regulation are greater than the costs of the accidents it supposedly prevents, is already disputable. But there is a more insidious cost: no regulation is free from side effects on the market. Further restriction of plane building and flying would result in a greater barrier for air transport companies, which in turn leads to a monopolization of the market. Apart from taxes, the public would lose money on dictated air travel prices.
   Of course it's not possible to put a price on a human life, but there are things that are more valuable: freedom, for example. No one seems to propose the government imprison all civilians to ensure the survival of its inmates ... yet. Where to draw the line between personal liberty and risking the lives of one's neighbor? When a person is willfully disregarding another person's safety, he may be found guilty of murder -- only in the case that someone else dies. When a person is neglectful with regard other people's safety, he may be found guilty of manslaughter -- only in the case that someone dies. When a person is not at fault, when for risks he could not possibly have foreseen or acted on, another person dies, he is not guilty of anything. When something was due to neglect or was genuinely unforseeable, is up to the courts to decide. That is their job.

Posted by Alanius on 03/28/09
Last updated 03/28/09

Just about every political debate is the same. There is the side that wants the government to pass a particular legislation into law or to follow a specific course of action, and there is the side that is ... for a different piece of legislation or course of action. Both parties offer a wide range of arguments that plead their case. But the heart of the matter is hardly ever struck. The real question is whether or not it is the proper role of the government to run that particular area of our lives.

Take the example of requiring drivers to wear seat belts. Everyone wants to reduce the number of fatal accidents to a minimum, but hardly anyone agrees at what costs. Should we increase the number of road traffic controls that inspect seat belts? Or make fines higher? Perhaps the best course of action is to force auto constructors to put into place a mechanism that prevents the engine from starting if all passengers and the driver are not properly seatbelted? The libertarian dissents: the government has no business telling me how to drive. After all, would you like me telling you how to drive?

Such an opinion is generally met by confusion. "Of course the government must do something -- without law, there is chaos!" Have these people lost their basic sense of morality? A driver who isn't wearing his seat belt is not endangering anyone but himself, much like a bungee jumper. How is he aggressive, how is he violating the rights of other people? Indeed, the moral thing to do, is to let the driver be. And not to interfere in the way he handles his own life.

Government does not exist to protect people against themselves. If it did, why isn't there a law that requires us to brush out teeth twice a day? Or a law mandating everyone at least eight hours of sleep? Or laws that prohibit smoking in one's own home? Why doesn't the government put overweight people on a diet?

The same is true for drugs: should we make them illegal, or regulate them? Should we perform more raids on suspected growing houses, or should we increase the penalties on the carriage of soft drugs? The libertarian is not satisfied by these 'options'. The government has no business telling me what I can or cannot smoke, what I can or cannot carry or what I can or cannot own. It does not matter how badly the drug affects the individual. It is his choice.

Gun control, privacy, labor laws, censorship, anti-discrimination laws ... the list goes ever on. The mainstream media and the politicians approach these issues the exact same way. They provide us with a phony debate: more or smarter regulation? The average individual is duped, and he cannot fathom how you could possibly question the government's authority when meddling in your private life.

For the libertarian, there is only one real question: do you want the government telling you how to run your life, or not?