Wouldn't trying total gun control (i.e., where only on duty military could bear firearms) not be a bad thing from a libertarian point of view, all things considered?
We're not free (50% maximum doesn't count), and we can't know whether the govt would give us our arms back and treat them no differently than they treat alcohol.
I think it could be better for the future if we just turned all of our firearms in now. It might make things worse, but Congress currently wants even more gun control rather than restoring gun rights to pre-1789 levels.
Besides, if the Federal govt prohibits secession, then we're only allowed the freedoms we have on utility.
I was also excited to hear about the cigarette tax being increased because it gives me a sliver of hope that the govt will get less revenue.
its awesome, actually. pray they are dumb enough to try it.
what? the government didnt give back the booze they seized and destroyed. get a grip.
this is where the drugs affected your brain the worst. who is "we" anyway?
just what are you on anyway? trick question, dont incriminate yourself.
lol its a system of control, the govt doesnt need the revenue
I guess I'm retarded then.
No2statism:An Austrian defense of gun control
How can an economic school of thought offer a defense of a political policy? Economics is a value-free science.
Economics is a value-free science.
Unless one can challenge that statement: philosophy of economics
"...the premises and assumptions of economics are substantially intertwined with normative assumptions about the good human life and the good society." (pp. 4-5)
Read the reasons stated...
@ John James: You're right, Would "gun control from an Austrian perspective" be better?
I feel like I'm giving libertarianism a bad name since I don't know what I'm talking about and since I can't see the big picture, but that's not your fault.
Aristophanes: Unless one can challenge that statement: philosophy of economics "...the premises and assumptions of economics are substantially intertwined with normative assumptions about the good human life and the good society." (pp. 4-5) Read the reasons stated...
Thanks for sharing that, and I'm interested to read it, but with a preliminary skim, it just seems like an amateur attempt at playing semantics. By the introduction it sounds like he just substituted the term "philosophy of economics" for "normative economics".
Just because people like to discuss their normative positions as they relate to economic issues, and utilize the word "economics" in naming what they are doing, that doesn't speak to what the science of economics is. As far as I understand, "normative economics" isn't really viewed as economics at all...at least not in the context of what economists mean when they say they're "doing economics". It is really just a phrase that is meant to refer to the branch of normative positions that deal with economic issues.
And his stated support in that paragraph of the position you quoted is total nonsense...
"Economic theory contains a family of substantive presuppositions about the nature of the good—individual and social—that directly influence the policy recommendations to which economic theory gives rise. For example, the assumption of rational egoism is inconsistent with several of the values of communitarianism; the assumption that equity is subordinate to efficiency is inconsistent with an egalitarian political philosophy; and the assumption that a bundle of commodities constitutes individual “wellbeing” is inconsistent with a more Aristotelian conception of the good human life (Nussbaum2000)."
Where in the hell does the science of economics dictate that "equity is subordinate to efficiency"? And a bundle of commodities constitutes individual “wellbeing”? Where does economics say anything about "wellbeing"? I'm not even sure what the hell he's talking about.
It sounds like nothing more than straw manning to me. He's literally making up normative value statements and claiming that the science of economics involves resting on them, just so he can try and claim economics involves resting on normative value statements.
No2statism:@ John James: You're right, Would "gun control from an Austrian perspective" be better?
No, not if you're trying to discuss normative concepts. If you're attempting to simply determine what would be rational policies based on the stated goals shared among a certain group of people, then economics would have something to say.
It sounds like your problem is you're assuming anyone who identifies as Austrian holds certain philosophical positions. And that is a mistake.
I had kind of an opposite thought cross my mind yesterday:
There is nothing inherent in the left to dislike arms carrying, in fact, it was inherent in their politics in the 19th century to push for it. Maybe the reason lefties tend to be against guns is because they figured they kind of won already, there is no need for the old kind of revolutionary activiteis. The instutions, forms of government, etc are all in place and now they can "piece meal" together what they want with a lot more ease - so why arm other people?
Just a thought, don't know how true it is
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle