Posted on 02/01/2002 9:55:30 AM PST by Exnihilo
It depends on how you look at the issue. As an economist, Lott isn't really making either argument. He's simply presenting the facts (More guns = Less crime). And the facts seem to indicate a benefit to society when people carry guns.
Obviously, in an environment where people are more inclined to carry guns than the laws allow, this seems to argue for more freedom.
But have you considered what this implies in a society where people are less inclined to carry guns than the laws allow? In that case, Lott would seemingly be arguing for some people to be required to carry guns, who otherwise wouldn't. That would be an endorsement for less freedom in the name of a particular benefit (less crime).
Therefore, in principal, neither side of Lott's argument is the "freedom" side by default, even if one seems to be so in current application.
Well, that may be. I understood your clarification. It's just that, as I said, when you say "rights", and someone else says "rights", it doesn't always mean the same thing. The question of what is a right or what isn't is a debatable subject, as you know, or else you wouldn't devote so much time to it.
You're not exactly telling me anything new here.
I spend the majority of my time trying to disabuse people of their confusion regarding the nature of rights. I would certainly spend a few hours trying to help Mr. Bork along too, if he would be so kind as to avail himself for the purpose.
Nah, they'll just ban Harry Potter.
Freedom is slavery?
Without objectivity, they are vacuous claims. Excellent post.
You are advocating pretense?
If 'rights' are whatever the community subjectively determines them to be at any given time then 'rights' are merely 'permissions' which may be given or taken away at a whim. At least libertarians have tried to pin down what rights are, they say rights are X and then they are willing to defend that position.
Well, they have introduced an axiomatic standard. Which is nice, except that most Americans don't believe in it. That is, rights are what the majority of Americans say they are. I am neither lamenting nor celebrating that fact. I am just putting it out there.
Sometimes the formula isn't enough...
Now that's a subjective measure. What does that mean? Not enough? Enough what?
You are advocating pretense?
If 'rights' are whatever the community subjectively determines them to be at any given time then 'rights' are merely 'permissions' which may be given or taken away at a whim. At least libertarians have tried to pin down what rights are, they say rights are X and then they are willing to defend that position.
Well, they have introduced an axiomatic standard. Which is nice, except that most Americans don't believe in it. That is, rights are what the majority of Americans say they are. I am neither lamenting nor celebrating that fact. I am just putting it out there.
Sometimes the formula isn't enough...
Now that's a subjective measure. What does that mean? Not enough? Enough what?
He merely looked to determine if it was legal to carry a concealed weapon.
Therefore, his corollary was exactly between the right of the people to carry, rather than the actual number of people carrying. He never looked at a mandatory carry statute.
To which he would reply:
Once something is announced, usually flatly or stridently, to be a right --whether pornography or abortion or what have you-- discussion becomes difficult to impossible. Rights inhere in the person, are claimed to be absolute, and cannot be deminished or taken away by reason; in fact, reason that suggests the non-existence of an asserted right is viewed as a moral evil by the claimant.
Bork actually makes a convincing case in his book the the First Amendment applies only to political speech, not all speech.Which is as easily debunked as the liberal claim that the 2nd Amendment only protects militias.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It's quite logical to assume that had the Framers only meant political speech, they would have specifically said so. Bork's claim greatly diminishes his reputation as a Constitutional expert.
-Eric
Good point.
Come to think of it, we dont keep records of who actually carries guns. Only who applies for the permits. That would make a study comparing actual rates of gun carrying with crime fairly difficult. However, a study of concealed carry permit holders, extrapolating the carrying practices of a subset to holders at large, would give some indication.
I'm not sure how one might study mandatory carry laws, since they're absurd to imagine in the current political environment. But I think such a study would be very interesting, and absolutely necessary if one wanted to study the relative benefits of the freedom to carry guns, versus the presense of guns alone.
Feel better now?
It's just their way of annoying liberals.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.