A Dilbert comic strip from 1989. Still rings true today.
Showing posts with label guns. Show all posts
Showing posts with label guns. Show all posts
Monday, March 16, 2009
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
A shining example of individual liberty
Being able to walk into a police station while openly carrying your personal defense tools. No hierarchy between policemen and customers: both are armed, both have their reasons. No embarassing questions, no paperwork, no panic, just respectful business between two equally free men.
As Heinlein said, "An armed society is a polite society". If you don't believe it, go and find out in New Hampshire.
As Heinlein said, "An armed society is a polite society". If you don't believe it, go and find out in New Hampshire.
(hat tip to Opponent)
Friday, February 13, 2009
Weapon control in a free society
When there are no laws regarding weapon control, what's to stop a madman from collecting WMDs and threatening his neighbors with it? Wouldn't a free society need some kind of controlling mechanism to prevent scenarios like these from happening?
Yes, it would. And that's how it could be handled:
Assume you're walking down the street and a man holding a knife runs towards you, screaming wildly. You knock him down and he starts complaining that he didn't want you any harm, he was merely rehearsing for a drama play. Was your defense reaction justified? Yes, most certainly.
Now assume this man was rehearsing on an empty football field. Nobody was threatened by his actions, so there's nothing wrong with it. Nobody minds him doing so.
Let's further assume that a man living in the desert without any neighbors in a 50-mile perimeter sets up a rocket launcher in his yard to defend himself and his property against marauders. Would anyone mind? Probably not. However, if someone decided to install a rocket launcher on his balcony in a crowded city, this might lead to trouble with neighbors; just like building a toxic waste dump in a family-friendly suburb will cause conflicts.
It's become clear that the ownership and usage of different kinds of weapons has different effects in different circumstances. As long as you're living a recluse life, you're free to drive a tank and set up missile launchers on your lawn. Since you were there first, any future neighbors will have to tolerate this behavior or stay away. However, threatening the security and well-being of your already existing neighbors with potentially harmful gadgets will be a controversial issue in a private property society.
How will this be resolved? Individually, either by reaching a compromise or using arbitration services/free market courts to settle the matter. You may choose to ignore a court ruling and keep your Stalin's organ on your balcony, but you're bound to face pretty harsh consequences once this information reaches the general market (I need to do an article on free market arbitration in the future to elaborate on this).
The state is completely useless in solving this problem. States produce codified law that is supposed to apply to all possible situations involving a particular matter. But as we've just shown, gun control in a free society is a case-by-case matter, something that cannot be codified, but must be weighed anew in every single instance. You'd need states that encompass only two pieces of property to adequately address this issue within the framework of a state, an obviously ludicrous proposal. A free market will be able to eliminate problems individually, thus creating much more maneuvering room for possible solutions.
But what about our WMD collector? He's dangerous even if he's chosen the path of the hermit. Basically, once it becomes known that he's bunkering highly dangerous substances, insurance and defense providers will find it profitable to eliminate the threat before it escalates and severe damage is done. Several approaches could be taken to do this; negotiating with the collector or breaking into his cellar to neutralize all WMDs (remember, hoarding WMDs counts as an act of aggression, so counter-force is allowed) are two of them. Killing the hermit would be a both morally and economically terrible decision; morally for his right to life and liberty, economically for compensation charges of potential relatives and for possible harm done by the hermit while defending himself. If you think states could solve problems of this kind more appropriately, think again: Waco and Ruby Ridge.
Now, there may be good reasons to own WMDs. Research purposes are one. But think of owning WMDs in the context of our rehearsing actor. If you behave irresponsibly (for example, by putting WMDs into canning jars in your cellar), you constitute a threat to your fellow men. They will feel an urgent need to eliminate this threat. Claiming that you're "just a WMD collector" is like claiming that you simply wanted to rehearse when you seemed to assault a random pedestrian.
Lastly, I recommend this paper by Walter Block for further reading. My ideas are based on his research, so I have to give him credit for this article - without him, it may not exist today.
Yes, it would. And that's how it could be handled:
Assume you're walking down the street and a man holding a knife runs towards you, screaming wildly. You knock him down and he starts complaining that he didn't want you any harm, he was merely rehearsing for a drama play. Was your defense reaction justified? Yes, most certainly.
Now assume this man was rehearsing on an empty football field. Nobody was threatened by his actions, so there's nothing wrong with it. Nobody minds him doing so.
Let's further assume that a man living in the desert without any neighbors in a 50-mile perimeter sets up a rocket launcher in his yard to defend himself and his property against marauders. Would anyone mind? Probably not. However, if someone decided to install a rocket launcher on his balcony in a crowded city, this might lead to trouble with neighbors; just like building a toxic waste dump in a family-friendly suburb will cause conflicts.
It's become clear that the ownership and usage of different kinds of weapons has different effects in different circumstances. As long as you're living a recluse life, you're free to drive a tank and set up missile launchers on your lawn. Since you were there first, any future neighbors will have to tolerate this behavior or stay away. However, threatening the security and well-being of your already existing neighbors with potentially harmful gadgets will be a controversial issue in a private property society.
How will this be resolved? Individually, either by reaching a compromise or using arbitration services/free market courts to settle the matter. You may choose to ignore a court ruling and keep your Stalin's organ on your balcony, but you're bound to face pretty harsh consequences once this information reaches the general market (I need to do an article on free market arbitration in the future to elaborate on this).
The state is completely useless in solving this problem. States produce codified law that is supposed to apply to all possible situations involving a particular matter. But as we've just shown, gun control in a free society is a case-by-case matter, something that cannot be codified, but must be weighed anew in every single instance. You'd need states that encompass only two pieces of property to adequately address this issue within the framework of a state, an obviously ludicrous proposal. A free market will be able to eliminate problems individually, thus creating much more maneuvering room for possible solutions.
But what about our WMD collector? He's dangerous even if he's chosen the path of the hermit. Basically, once it becomes known that he's bunkering highly dangerous substances, insurance and defense providers will find it profitable to eliminate the threat before it escalates and severe damage is done. Several approaches could be taken to do this; negotiating with the collector or breaking into his cellar to neutralize all WMDs (remember, hoarding WMDs counts as an act of aggression, so counter-force is allowed) are two of them. Killing the hermit would be a both morally and economically terrible decision; morally for his right to life and liberty, economically for compensation charges of potential relatives and for possible harm done by the hermit while defending himself. If you think states could solve problems of this kind more appropriately, think again: Waco and Ruby Ridge.
Now, there may be good reasons to own WMDs. Research purposes are one. But think of owning WMDs in the context of our rehearsing actor. If you behave irresponsibly (for example, by putting WMDs into canning jars in your cellar), you constitute a threat to your fellow men. They will feel an urgent need to eliminate this threat. Claiming that you're "just a WMD collector" is like claiming that you simply wanted to rehearse when you seemed to assault a random pedestrian.
Lastly, I recommend this paper by Walter Block for further reading. My ideas are based on his research, so I have to give him credit for this article - without him, it may not exist today.
Guns and crime on YouTube
I decided to create read versions of the articles that have the biggest potential of becoming popular. So, this is my first attempt. As I said in the comments section, please excuse my accent and breathing.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Guns and crime
A hot topic, especially in debates with liberals, is the question of gun ownership. Liberals tend to be hostile towards gun ownership for practical reasons. A higher amount of guns in circulation, they argue, leads to an increased amount of gun violence; this additional gun violence is completely disproportionate compared to the amount of violence prevented by using a gun, and thus, guns are bad tools that ought to be banned.
Most often, these debates are settled by reciting different kinds of statistics that are meant to reaffirm the respective party's position. I don't intend to do this. I want to resolve the gun issue by employing praxeology and economics.
First of all, we must constitute that a person who intends to commit a crime does not care too much about the legitimacy of her actions. Whether or not guns are outlawed only matters to her in the sense that punishment may increase for getting caught, but also that the likelihood of an armed victim massively decreases. The advantages a criminal is able to gain over the victim make the increased punishment for owning a gun pale in significance.
Guns are great levelers. In a state of nature, superior physical force is an unsurmountable advantage in a fight between two individuals. As arms technology developed, these physical inequalities tended to matter less and less. A Roman gladius still required dexterity and some amount of bodily strength to be wielded. A musket is quite a hassle to load. Modern handguns can be used by anyone with three functioning fingers. Modern handguns are a blessing to the weak and downtrodden. Thus the old saying, "God created all men. Sam Colt made them equal."
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Outlaws will have a huge advantage over those who are barred by law to arm themselves. In fact, due to the effectiveness of contemporary firearms technology, even naturally strong individuals will then fall prey to anyone bold enough to purchase a firearm on the black market.
Since the probability of being victimized by a crime is low (and even then, the damage done is likely to be insignificant as well), non-criminals do not have an economic incentive to enter the black market and risk punishment by purchasing a potentially bad-quality, high-price firearm. Criminals, on the other hand, have an almost guaranteed success rate of 100% to victimize someone by employing firearm force in an area with an active universal gun ban. There's next to nothing that can match the power of an aggressively used firearm, except for a defensively drawn firearm. Accordingly, we can say that the economic incentive structure in a society with an active universal gun ban will lead to armed criminals and unarmed victims.
As soon as defensively used firearms enter the picture, the cost associated with the operational risk of committing a crime increases massively. Breaking into someone's house may result in getting shot or being threatened with a firearm and delivered to protection services later on. Robbing someone on the street may result in the victim drawing a firearm and therefore making it too dangerous to proceed (since the cost may be the robber's life), plus the possibility of being delivered to protection services due to a lack of escape possibilities. The same pattern can be applied to rape, kidnapping, murder or any other crime involving interpersonal contact.
Without a universal gun ban, the cost of owning a firearm decreases massively. Not only will they be cheaper and of better quality due to open competition, but there's no risk in owning them since it is perfectly legal to do so. This will set the threshold low enough for a certain margin of individuals to become gun owners. Once it becomes common market information that gun ownership is not a rarity, even non-gun-owners benefit as free riders: since a criminal cannot be sure whether you own a gun or not, but has to calculate the possibility due to the existence of gun owners in society, you're safer than you were before for, all else equal, you're now less likely to be assaulted.
Guns are force equalizers. Powerful as they are, it is irresponsible to deny ordinary citizens the option to own and use them. Doing that will only strengthen the position of criminals. We can assume that, ceteris paribus, an armed society will deter criminals more effectively than a non-armed one.
Most often, these debates are settled by reciting different kinds of statistics that are meant to reaffirm the respective party's position. I don't intend to do this. I want to resolve the gun issue by employing praxeology and economics.
First of all, we must constitute that a person who intends to commit a crime does not care too much about the legitimacy of her actions. Whether or not guns are outlawed only matters to her in the sense that punishment may increase for getting caught, but also that the likelihood of an armed victim massively decreases. The advantages a criminal is able to gain over the victim make the increased punishment for owning a gun pale in significance.
Guns are great levelers. In a state of nature, superior physical force is an unsurmountable advantage in a fight between two individuals. As arms technology developed, these physical inequalities tended to matter less and less. A Roman gladius still required dexterity and some amount of bodily strength to be wielded. A musket is quite a hassle to load. Modern handguns can be used by anyone with three functioning fingers. Modern handguns are a blessing to the weak and downtrodden. Thus the old saying, "God created all men. Sam Colt made them equal."
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Outlaws will have a huge advantage over those who are barred by law to arm themselves. In fact, due to the effectiveness of contemporary firearms technology, even naturally strong individuals will then fall prey to anyone bold enough to purchase a firearm on the black market.
Since the probability of being victimized by a crime is low (and even then, the damage done is likely to be insignificant as well), non-criminals do not have an economic incentive to enter the black market and risk punishment by purchasing a potentially bad-quality, high-price firearm. Criminals, on the other hand, have an almost guaranteed success rate of 100% to victimize someone by employing firearm force in an area with an active universal gun ban. There's next to nothing that can match the power of an aggressively used firearm, except for a defensively drawn firearm. Accordingly, we can say that the economic incentive structure in a society with an active universal gun ban will lead to armed criminals and unarmed victims.
As soon as defensively used firearms enter the picture, the cost associated with the operational risk of committing a crime increases massively. Breaking into someone's house may result in getting shot or being threatened with a firearm and delivered to protection services later on. Robbing someone on the street may result in the victim drawing a firearm and therefore making it too dangerous to proceed (since the cost may be the robber's life), plus the possibility of being delivered to protection services due to a lack of escape possibilities. The same pattern can be applied to rape, kidnapping, murder or any other crime involving interpersonal contact.
Without a universal gun ban, the cost of owning a firearm decreases massively. Not only will they be cheaper and of better quality due to open competition, but there's no risk in owning them since it is perfectly legal to do so. This will set the threshold low enough for a certain margin of individuals to become gun owners. Once it becomes common market information that gun ownership is not a rarity, even non-gun-owners benefit as free riders: since a criminal cannot be sure whether you own a gun or not, but has to calculate the possibility due to the existence of gun owners in society, you're safer than you were before for, all else equal, you're now less likely to be assaulted.
Guns are force equalizers. Powerful as they are, it is irresponsible to deny ordinary citizens the option to own and use them. Doing that will only strengthen the position of criminals. We can assume that, ceteris paribus, an armed society will deter criminals more effectively than a non-armed one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
