Why it’s not easy being Libertarian!!
As Sunder Katwala would like to point out “It’s not easy being Libertarian..” :
Owing to the persistent unpopularity of the ‘whoever governs least governs best’ philosophy.
But sometimes you might get a chance to catch the national mood.
Take today’s killings in Cumbria.
For most people, a difficult to understand tragedy.
But, for the Libertarian Alliance, the ideal opportunity to dash out a press release arguing that it would never happen if only we were to repeal all firearms restrictions:
“The Libertarian Alliance believes that all the Firearms Acts from 1920 onwards should be repealed. The largely ineffective laws of 1870 and 1902 should also be repealed. It should once again be possible for adults to walk into a gun shop and, without showing any permit or proof of identity, buy as many guns and as much ammunition as they can afford”.
After all, as the LA points out , in the US, “at least one campus shooting was brought to a premature end by armed civilians”.
Evidence-based policymaking!
The ‘whoever governs least governs best’ philosophy’ is not widely popular philosophy indeed, however, at the risk of sounding like my school teachers – what is popular is not always right & what is right is not always popular.
But Sunder is right. This is evidence-based from the LA. Sunder just doesn’t think it is because he hasn’t taken all the evidence into account which I have pointed out in the comments section of his post:
I would like to suggest that you look at Switzerland. Gun ownership is widespread in Switzerland owing to Switzerland’s military culture being primarily militia based. Recreational gun sport is also very high as is the prevalence of privately owned firearms amongst civilians.
Gun crime in Switzerland is very low in respect of how widespread gun ownership is. This suggests that the link between gun crime and gun ownership is more tenuous than knee-jerk reactions take for granted. On the contrary due to the fact that guns are so prevalent in Switzerland firearm training and education is very high.
You are, of course, right in one respect. It is not easy being a libertarian at all. Most of our opinions seem to be the opposite of the most obvious knee-jerk reactions but since knee-jerk reactions are overwhelmingly proven incorrect I’d say it’s burden worth carrying.
When left-wingers proclaim they have all the evidence, count the spoons…
June 3rd, 2010 at 9:44 am
I would like to point you to this article which unfortunately confirms that Switzerland is no longer all that sure of how to handle gun laws, since we actually had more gun related deaths than the UK in some years recently: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/rise-in-gun-crime-forces-swiss-to-reconsider-right-to-bear-arms-446946.html
(I am Swiss but have lived in the UK since 1999)
June 3rd, 2010 at 10:18 am
Evidence-based policy on any remotely controversial issue rapidly reaches the point where there are too many reports and studies on both sides for anybody to read.
And so both sides will complain that the others don’t take all the evidence into account. Rightly.
Meanwhile few can resist the common human failing of judging evidence we like less harshly than evidence we don’t like.
June 3rd, 2010 at 10:26 am
Gun ownership in Canada is widespread including hand guns. The UK rate of murder in this country is 1 per 100,000 people, here are some comparible stats from Canada and America.
“For comparisons to various cities in North America, in 2007 for example, the homicide rate for the city of Toronto was 3.3 per 100,000 people, yet for Detroit (33.8), Atlanta (19.7), Chicago (15.5), San Francisco (12.3), Boston (10.3) and New York City (6.3) it was higher, while it was only marginally lower in Vancouver (3.1), San Jose (2.9) and Montreal (2.6).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Toronto
June 3rd, 2010 at 11:06 am
Hi Sara
I commented on your own comment on Next Left, and wanted to follow up. I actually think that the three previous commenters (using that word too much, sorry) have caught my misgivings of your assessment of the gun control argument quite well. I would also agree with Joe Otten that neither side of these debates can adequately argue that they own enough of the facts to justify their conclusion over their opponents.
I suppose the only real clincher would be that an individual has the right to defend themselves as they see fit, regardless of the societal consequences. But even this argument is not without problems, or would you disagree?
mpg
June 3rd, 2010 at 11:17 am
Gary Mauser’s excellent chapter on firearms in the IEA publication ‘Prohibitions’ provides an ‘evidence based’ analysis of the undesirability of further and existing legislation on the matter.
http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-book429pdf?.pdf
June 3rd, 2010 at 11:28 am
Hi mpg,
When I said that the link between gun crime and gun ownership was tenuous it is precisely because of other factors. You don’t seem to be agreeing nor disagreeing with me.
I do think individuals should have the right to defend themselves but I probably think the societal consequences would be different that how you see them. I think/hope it would mean the rise of private security agencies/police forces.
The problem with Switzerland now is that men are obliged to have guns which is equally as illegitimate as prohibiting them.
Sara
June 3rd, 2010 at 12:58 pm
Hello again Sara, hope you’re well.
“When I said that the link between gun crime and gun ownership was tenuous it is precisely because of other factors. You don’t seem to be agreeing nor disagreeing with me.”
I understood your point as being that there is positive evidence for gun liberalisation, while Sunder @ Next Left was arguing that there was positive evidence against gun liberalisation. My disagreement with you was that just as you accused Sunder of not making reference to all the available evidence, so the same could be said of you in your counter-example. So, yes, in a way, and on this point, I am not agreeing with you or disagreeing you, merely pointing out the difficulties of both positions on evidentiary arguments for gun control or liberalisation.
“I do think individuals should have the right to defend themselves but I probably think the societal consequences would be different that how you see them. I think/hope it would mean the rise of private security agencies/police forces.”
So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that in no feasible word, would the liberalistion of gun access lead to an increase in gun crime? That seems difficult to me. Which leads me back to my last point: that gun rights for them to overcome the stalemate of evidence, must be absolute rights, regardless of the collective consequence. By saying this I mean that it doesn’t matter if more people die as a result of accidents, mass killings, etc: an individual has the right to own a gun at all times, in any possible society. This is the only way, as I see it, that the positive case for gun liberalisation can be comprehensively stated. However, you seem to make another appeal to consequence at the end there, which would be irrelevant if you hold to the individual right of gun ownership.
BTW, your scenario would probably (though I don’t know as I hate to predict what a free market would produce) necessitate many more liberalising laws than just the freedom of gun ownership. A removal of the monopoly of police forces would be one, and deregulation of security agencies another. So, technically, your conclusion depends on more than just individual gun rights.
mpg
June 3rd, 2010 at 1:16 pm
Mpg,
“So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that in no feasible word, would the liberalistion of gun access lead to an increase in gun crime?”
You don’t seem understand me correctly at all. Gun ownership and crime (note: not gun crime) are not related at all. Therefore there is no legitimate reason to prohibit individuals from owning guns.
Let’s say this: Gun ownership increases therefore gun crime increases. However, overall crime decreases. This is a good outcome.
Better than: Gun ownership decreases therefore gun crime decreases. However, overall crime increases. This is a worse outcome.
If more people own guns I think gun crime would increase. However, the increase in gun crime may occur in a context where overall crime is decreasing.
Gun crime increasing does not mean overall crime always increases. Likewise just because there is less gun crime doesn’t mean there is less overall crime.
If you’ve been stabbed and are bleeding to death you don’t lie there thinking to yourself “well, at least I wasn’t shot…”
June 3rd, 2010 at 3:16 pm
Sara
“You don’t seem understand me correctly at all. Gun ownership and crime (note: not gun crime) are not related at all. Therefore there is no legitimate reason to prohibit individuals from owning guns.”
Sorry to do this, but you seem to have changed my comment in order to make your own. I never said anything about crime in general, only gun crime. But I can see why you are making this point, so lets get into that…
“Let’s say this: Gun ownership increases therefore gun crime increases. However, overall crime decreases. This is a good outcome…”
“…If more people own guns I think gun crime would increase. However, the increase in gun crime may occur in a context where overall crime is decreasing.”
Now we’re at the heart of the matter. Lets take the hypothetical, an increase in gun ownership leads to an increase in gun crime but a decrease in crime overall. (By gun crime I am sure we both mean criminal acts involving the use of guns, since any defensive act with a gun wouldn’t be a crime?) Anyway, lets say that this is true. The scenario you outlined could still be problematic, as I indicated in the previous comment, since you could end up with the situation where non-violent crime goes down, but violent crimes go up (this could be because the criminals enter into an arms race with the gun owning citizens). Now the question then becomes: have we made a net benefit in crime reduction if non-violent crimes go down, but violent crimes go up? I leave that for you to decide.
“Gun crime increasing does not mean overall crime always increases. Likewise just because there is less gun crime doesn’t mean there is less overall crime. ”
I would completely agree, as long as you will entertain the possibility that non-violent crimes decreasing wouldn’t mean that violent crimes would decrease also.
“If you’ve been stabbed and are bleeding to death you don’t lie there thinking to yourself “well, at least I wasn’t shot…”
LOL, good point. However, as is the case in Cumbria right now, if the genocidal maniac had only a knife rather than I gun, I would be thinking ‘thank goodness he didn’t have a gun’.
“Therefore there is no legitimate reason to prohibit individuals from owning guns.”
Sometimes my contrarian nature clouds things a bit, (I was a philosophy graduate after all). I am not, you may be surprised to learn, against individuals owning guns for protection. However, personally, I would only advocate it for home defence with some local regulation, for example in the form of compulsory membership to gun associations, or registration with a local authority. I would however, still ban automatic weapons, explosives and other indirect weaponry, contrary to some of my more fanciful libertarian friends.
As always, its been great discussing this with you.
June 3rd, 2010 at 6:04 pm
On the topic of Canada & its gun laws, even Michael Moore in Bowling for Columbine pointed out that in Canada despite gun ownership being just as high as it is south of the border & yet has a fraction of the crime & people in major cities even leave their doors unlocked.
Of course you won’t hear my opinion in the media & that is if handguns & open carry were legal in Britain, I doubt the loss of life would be as great as it was yesterday.
June 3rd, 2010 at 6:14 pm
Sara,
“Therefore there is no legitimate reason to prohibit individuals from owning guns.”
Are there any weapons for which there are “legitimate” reasons for prohibiting the public from owning them? Nuclear weapons for example?
It is hard to see this in absolutes when there is a continuum of military capability.
June 3rd, 2010 at 7:30 pm
@Joe Otten
“Are there any weapons for which there are “legitimate” reasons for prohibiting the public from owning them? Nuclear weapons for example?”
This is to libertarianism what the problem of evil is to theism: there are answers but none of them that satisfactory, at least to me.
The libertarian might argue that nuclear weapons aren’t guns, and so there is no right to such weapons. But this seems like a semantic dodge.
Another move may be to say that indiscriminate weapons should be banned and direct weapons, like handguns that can be concentrated on individual targets are to be allowed. But again, this doesn’t cut it for me. Surely given libertarian individualism, a person has a right to not only defend themselves however they chose, against any threat, real or potential, but surely they are also allowed to DETER such threats in anyway they wish?
Yet another move is to say that nuclear weapons can be owned by individuals, along with bio-toxic chemical weaponry, dirty bombs, etc. At this point the libertarian loses me and I fear a sensible conversation is impossible.
The force of your point is that if there is any overriding reason why a weapon must be restricted, even in the libertarian utopia, then the notion of an absolute right of self-defence in general is obviously in error. On this point, I must agree with you. But I wonder if you can imagine any circumstance where a weapon liberally available?
June 3rd, 2010 at 7:39 pm
@Ziggy
“Of course you won’t hear my opinion in the media & that is if handguns & open carry were legal in Britain, I doubt the loss of life would be as great as it was yesterday.”
I would agree. Open carry does have some evidence to support it, and seems to be a valid logical deduction. But may I ask you if you think that open carry may have other downsides? For example, perhaps an arms race between the criminal and the citizen ensues, meaning that whatever weapon the citizen has, the criminal seeks better. Could this also be the result of gun liberalisation? And how would you overcome this? Allow the citizen to have any weapon that the criminal seeks to have?
Just so I nail my own opinions to the mast here, I think that guns for home defence can be permitted, but open carry probably will lead to escalation, but on this, I am not supremely confident of the correctness of my belief.
June 3rd, 2010 at 7:57 pm
On the question of whether individuals should be able to own nuclear weapons?
no because unlike a gun a nuclear weapon could kill thousands of people in a passive state, as in not properly maintained.
Sure they’re libertarians who’ll suggest that if government owns nukes then why shouldn’t individuals (you’d likely hear some now & again phone into Free Talk Live) but they’re extremist idiots.
June 3rd, 2010 at 8:00 pm
one thing about libertarian dogma
If memory serves right Mr Otten is a geolibertarian & geolibertarians are often mocked (unfairly) as socialists by other libertarians.
June 5th, 2010 at 10:40 am
Hi all,
Have been looking up statistics & I believe I have found a good website. Here: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
Murders in Switzerland are lower than UK but murders with a firearm are higher:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita
I was actually right to use Switzerland as an example.
Canada has a similar murder rate to the UK. So this proves my point that the evidence that the link between gun ownership and murders are tenuous at best.
Basically the point of this whole discussion is this: prohibiting guns in this country even further won’t stop incidents like the Cumbria shooting happening again. We can’t actually make the legislation much tighter. Like so many things in life slapping blanket authoritarian legislation around an issue will not solve it, in fact, it may have a perverse effect.
From a completely pragmatic point of view there’s actually a good case for the authorities doing nothing.
June 5th, 2010 at 11:22 am
Er, no not a geolibertarian. Are you thinking of Jock Coates?
Nuclear weapons clearly are an extreme, but there is a lot of middle ground. Bombs, tanks, fighter jets, assault helicopters, artillery, battleships,…
I can imagine enthusiasts owning some of these things quite harmlessly.
So where do you draw the line, and what principle “legitimates” the distinction between this and the handgun?
(FWIW I see no substance to the “legitimacy” point. A gun ban either has good consequences, net, or bad ones. The concept of legitimacy is no help in assessing this.)
June 5th, 2010 at 6:19 pm
Yeah I know about Jock Coates but I was told by Simon Radford you were
June 6th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
What an academic debate you lot are having. First define what you mean by a gun. A shotgun is a very legitimate thing to own in the countryside for pest control, clay pigeon shooting etc. If I stand 100 yds away and someone fires one at me I will walk away. If they fired a rifle at me assuming they are a good shot, and in some cases that is a big if, I am dead in under a second. There is no legitmate reason for anyone in countryside that has trees, hedgerows etc. to own a rifle that can kill at a mile other than target shooting at a club. There are very exceptional cases where they are needed for fox control etc.That could be handled by very tight licences. Why even discuss hand guns at all!
I cannot believe that you lot are even bothering to have this discourse unless you are all Americans. In that case God help you.
June 6th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
A handgun is a very legitimate form of firearm in an urban environment being a handy deterrent & defence from possible criminality as well as possible tyranny.
June 14th, 2010 at 11:35 am
@Ziggy
While owning a handgun would provide the possibility of defence for the individual, I think it is very difficult to argue the protection from tyranny angle. Unless you are authorising citizens to have the same weapons as governments can have, then the state will always have superior firepower.
Plus you have frequently mentioned that nuclear weapons can be prohibited as they can be lethal in a passive state, but surely this applies to other things to: for example an oil rig. If it isn’t maintained you could end up with something like the Gulf of Mexico or even the Niger Delta. Just a thought.