D&amp;D PT&amp;P&#x27;s &quot;Ask A Libertarian&quot; Thread

Teaddict

Starting tomorrow I will answer some also :smile:

Would you identify as a libertarian? I always had you down as more of a "freedom loving conservative". :p:

Reply 21

DrunkHamster

Obviously it doesn't prove a causal link between economic freedom and the bottom 10% being well off, but have a look at this graph:

That's interesting, thanks.

Another thing - what do you guys think about gun control/the right to own weapons?

Reply 22

Mc'Lovin

moregano

That's interesting, thanks.

Another thing - what do you guys think about gun control/the right to own weapons?

It would depend on the purpose. There would have to be a vital reason. For example, if a person had been mugged twice then I believe that as for they have been let down by the police twice they deserve protection. Also, there would be a compulsory training to make sure the person knows where to shoot.

Reply 23

Teaddict

I am never sure to be honest. Whenever I read about these mixed up ideologies or doctrines there are one or two themes that isolate me out.

Reply 24

Aesop

Do you believe in the implementation of any tax-based services? Protections services, etc.?

If no, why not, what are the alternatives, and what do you think about people who cannot afford to pay the rates required by private protection (such as the disabled, the infirm, the elderly, the young, etc.).

If yes, why do you draw a line between the services you do allow and others such as healthcare, education, etc.? What criteria do you use to make the distinction?

(I can already see the answers looming for the former: economic models provide incentives in the strangest ways, right?)

Reply 25

Teaddict

Aesop

Do you believe in the implementation of any tax-based services? Protections services, etc.?

If no, why not, what are the alternatives, and what do you think about people who cannot afford to pay the rates required by private protection (such as the disabled, the infirm, the elderly, the young, etc.).

If yes, why do you draw a line between the services you do allow and others such as healthcare, education, etc.? What criteria do you use to make the distinction?

(I can already see the answers looming for the former: economic models provide incentives in the strangest ways, right?)

Taxation in the United Kingdom is already too high. We should seek to lower taxation across the board as well as increase the level of tax allowance.

Reply 26

Mc'Lovin

It would depend on the purpose. There would have to be a vital reason. For example, if a person had been mugged twice then I believe that as for they have been let down by the police twice they deserve protection. Also, there would be a compulsory training to make sure the person knows where to shoot.

I don't agree that someone should be allowed to have a weapon because they've been mugged - you're just as likely to get mugged if you're carrying a gun or a knife. How is the mugger supposed to know who's got a weapon? There's a lot of evidence to suggest that owning a gun makes you more likely to be shot yourself. And I agree that if someone wants to own a weapon then they should be able to take the consequences, but guns, which are designed purely to injure and kill, present a danger to people other than the owner, obviously. Even if they're trained and certified etc, there's always going to be incidents where innocent people get harmed. Isn't the whole idea of libertarianism about giving people freedom as long as it doesn't put others in danger?

Reply 27

moregano

I don't agree that someone should be allowed to have a weapon because they've been mugged - you're just as likely to get mugged if you're carrying a gun or a knife. How is the mugger supposed to know who's got a weapon?

If everyone is allowed to carry a gun, you'll be less likely to get mugged as the attacker knows you may have a gun on you.

Reply 28

Hmm, I guess so.

I always thought that more relaxed gun laws = higher rates of violent crime, but I just googled it and apparently not... Meh, I'm undecided on this one. Morally it doesn't seem right to allow people to own weapons designed to kill, but it's their choice and if it's not actually increasing the risk of violent crime (and I'm not entirely convinced), I guess there's no point in banning without a good reason.

Reply 29

moregano

Hmm, I guess so.

I always thought that more relaxed gun laws = higher rates of violent crime, but I just googled it and apparently not... Meh, I'm undecided on this one. Morally it doesn't seem right to allow people to own weapons designed to kill, but it's their choice and if it's not actually increasing the risk of violent crime (and I'm not entirely convinced), I guess there's no point in banning without a good reason.

States in the USA with relaxed gun laws have much less gun crime rates than states with strict laws.

Also - Switzerland. Need I say more? :p:

Reply 30

The_Octopus

moregano

Hmm, I guess so.

I always thought that more relaxed gun laws = higher rates of violent crime, but I just googled it and apparently not... Meh, I'm undecided on this one. Morally it doesn't seem right to allow people to own weapons designed to kill, but it's their choice and if it's not actually increasing the risk of violent crime (and I'm not entirely convinced), I guess there's no point in banning without a good reason.

On the contrary - morally it is necessary for people to be able to defend themselves. Currently, the only "defence" we have is the police who spend most of their time and resources punishing non-criminals for trivial acts like speeding, or taking drugs. The promise of protection from the state, (which we should remember steals half of your money itself) is clearly not enough and so it is madness to outlaw people defending themselves from genuine criminals.
When used for self-defence guns are not for killing, they are for threatening criminals with the thread of death. Telling a thief to get out of your house is a lot more effective when you have a gun but that doesn't mean you want to shoot them.

Reply 31

smalltownboy

14

The_Octopus

On the contrary - morally it is necessary for people to be able to defend themselves. Currently, the only "defence" we have is the police who spend most of their time and resources punishing non-criminals for trivial acts like speeding, or taking drugs. The promise of protection from the state, (which we should remember steals half of your money itself) is clearly not enough and so it is madness to outlaw people defending themselves from genuine criminals.
When used for self-defence guns are not for killing, they are for threatening criminals with the thread of death. Telling a thief to get out of your house is a lot more effective when you have a gun but that doesn't mean you want to shoot them.

Actually i'd argue that there is no moral argument for allowing gun ownership. There are certain (spurious) arguments for practical reasons - like the burglary example often used - but confusing practicality with morality is nonsense.

I don't think arming a population can ever be a positive move - there are many heat-of-the-moment situations that with a gun could end up as fatal - how many cases are there of spouses having a heated argument and pulling the trigger without thinking? Surely a more effective way to tackle problems like fear of crime is to simply give the police more resources, and try and get the media to stfu sometimes.

Reply 32

smalltownboy

Actually i'd argue that there is no moral argument for allowing gun ownership. There are certain (spurious) arguments for practical reasons - like the burglary example often used - but confusing practicality with morality is nonsense.

Here's the moral argument - why should the government be able to use guns (policemen, army, etc.) but not the ordinary people? Are policemen and soldiers of a higher moral worth than me? Or is it just because of their specious claim to "authority".

Reply 33

The_Octopus

On the contrary - morally it is necessary for people to be able to defend themselves. Currently, the only "defence" we have is the police who spend most of their time and resources punishing non-criminals for trivial acts like speeding, or taking drugs. The promise of protection from the state, (which we should remember steals half of your money itself) is clearly not enough and so it is madness to outlaw people defending themselves from genuine criminals.
When used for self-defence guns are not for killing, they are for threatening criminals with the thread of death. Telling a thief to get out of your house is a lot more effective when you have a gun but that doesn't mean you want to shoot them.

I just don't think people can be trusted to be sensible with guns. Even if there's evidence to suggest that more relaxed gun laws are associated with lower violent crime rates, just the fact that rash decisions and deadly mistakes will happen at all is enough to make me think twice. Obviously people get hurt and killed anyway without guns being involved, but giving them a weapon to do that seems morally wrong. I don't know...

On another note (and sorry if all my questions are getting annoying, I am genuinely interested :p:

), what's your view on copyrighting, file sharing, patent laws and intellectual property rights etc?

Reply 34

The_Octopus

moregano

I just don't think people can be trusted to be sensible with guns. Even if there's evidence to suggest that more relaxed gun laws are associated with lower violent crime rates, just the fact that rash decisions and deadly mistakes will happen at all is enough to make me think twice. Obviously people get hurt and killed anyway without guns being involved, but giving them a weapon to do that seems morally wrong. I don't know...

On another note (and sorry if all my questions are getting annoying, I am genuinely interested :p:

), what's your view on copyrighting, file sharing, patent laws and intellectual property rights etc?

On the guns, I think you can't ignore the statistics. There will always be civilians with guns. Either just the criminals have them, as they do currently, and we have higher crime rates or everyone has them and we have lower crime rates. People will get hurt either way but we need to minimise this problem and letting the innocent defend themselves is the best way.

Also, as mentioned above the police have no moral right to be armed. Recently there was the story of some high up policeman engaging in extremely corrupt activities. They are not angels - they are humans.

On intellectual property rights, I am really yet to decide where I stand personally. One thing I would say is that it should never be a crime to receive intellectual property - if I download music then that is fine. The only time we should worry about what is acceptable is when a customer has agreed to not copy information and pass it on, and then they break that agreement.

Reply 35

beepbeeprichie

The_Octopus

On the guns, I think you can't ignore the statistics. There will always be civilians with guns. Either just the criminals have them, as they do currently, and we have higher crime rates or everyone has them and we have lower crime rates. People will get hurt either way but we need to minimise this problem and letting the innocent defend themselves is the best way.

Also, as mentioned above the police have no moral right to be armed. Recently there was the story of some high up policeman engaging in extremely corrupt activities. They are not angels - they are humans.

Wait,so civilians but not police can be armed? That seems kinda unfair.

The_Octopus

On intellectual property rights, I am really yet to decide where I stand personally. One thing I would say is that it should never be a crime to receive intellectual property - if I download music then that is fine. The only time we should worry about what is acceptable is when a customer has agreed to not copy information and pass it on, and then they break that agreement.

What distinguishes IP from 'private property'? Why do you not have as much right over your ip as over your house?

Reply 36

beepbeeprichie

That argument doesn't get you the conclusion you want (legalisation of arms). I can agree with your above statement and maintain that neither the government nor the people (I feel kind of grand using the phrase!) are morally entitled to possessing them.

Reply 37

Aesop

Aesop

Do you believe in the implementation of any tax-based services? Protections services, etc.?

If no, why not, what are the alternatives, and what do you think about people who cannot afford to pay the rates required by private protection (such as the disabled, the infirm, the elderly, the young, etc.).

If yes, why do you draw a line between the services you do allow and others such as healthcare, education, etc.? What criteria do you use to make the distinction?

(I can already see the answers looming for the former: economic models provide incentives in the strangest ways, right?)

Bump for delicious answers.

And on the subject of guns, do you not think it the case that perhaps the reason guns should not be held by all citizens is that they hardly, if ever, act as proportionate self-defence? That is, they have a function that makes it extremely likely that one will suffer grievous harm, and committing grievous harm (in self-defence) is very rarely justified.

Reply 38

tomheppy

That argument doesn't get you the conclusion you want (legalisation of arms). I can agree with your above statement and maintain that neither the government nor the people (I feel kind of grand using the phrase!) are morally entitled to possessing them.

But what can you possibly do about it now? There are too many guns out their to just "re-call", so the only obvious conclusion is legalisation. It's like drugs - people are still going to get them, and criminal gangs will profit from this. Make them legal, you bankrupt the criminal gangs and you end up like Switzerland, where everyone owns a gun and the gun crime rate is virtually 0. :p:

Reply 39

beepbeeprichie