Libertarians.....what do you think???

[Gandalf511]

as hard as it is to find british stats, i did find the japenese (for some reason they came up on some altavista searches). anyway the embassy of Japan to the US in Washington has a site with statistics on crime and various other categories. Anyway the Japenese murder rate is 1 in 100,000. the US is 7 in 100,000.

 

[Gandalf511]

as far as the swiss go, the part on taxes is interesting. however, they do have restrictive gun laws and in 1997 they further strengthened the laws. switzerland requires a specific permit for each one owns, and requires that you be trained in how to use it and on target skills. also these permits have to be renewed every 5 years.

 

[jaydee]

Exactly, you state what YOU think, then when asked to back it up you have to look for it, because you had to guess in the first place. As far as the Japenese, are you sure its because of the laws, and not because of the culture? You know they someimes sleep in their workplace to be more efficient? The Swiss, is well close to the "system anything like what the libertarians are suggesting" as you challenged. Besides, what's the point whether or not a government runs just like what the Libertarians are proposing? Whats the difference if there is or is not?

 

[slipperyslope]

I hate to say the NRA has been PREACHING for people to take Gun classes. They want citizens to be educated when it comes to firearms. Guess who the government hates?? The NRA.

Jim

 

[Gandalf511]

my point it is impossible for a nation to exist as the libertarians propose. what exactly do you guys expect as the outcome of abolishing gun law? everyone will carry a handgun? a shotgun? an ak? seriously what are your expectations for that?

also what will be the outcome of ending welfare? how exactly will this ever help the poor?

what will become of the current disability program that helps those that can't work?

as for the stats, if anyone can find crime indexes conducted in teh same year by reputable establishments in both countries i'll be amazed, but i'm still looking.

 

[Gandalf511]

as for the libertarian views on education, they don't really seem to have any. occording to their site www.lp.org, they plan to:

"Support a true market in education -- one in which parents and students would not be stuck with a bad local school, because they could choose another.


Implement measures such as tax credits so that parents will have the financial ability to choose among schools.


Provide financial incentives for businesses to help fund schools and for individuals to support students other than their own children.


Eliminate the U.S. Department of Education, which spends billions on education and educates no one. The growth of this agency and its numerous regulations is a major reason for runaway costs in American schools."


Other than eliminating the Department of Education, none of this is new. Texas (my home state) already has a "true market in education". parents can send their kids to any school they want. pay a fee and send them to a different school district. pay another and send them to a private school. we have tax credits for parents and vouchers have been proposed. the financial incentives for businesses is advertising. Dr. Pepper, is the official sponsor of Plano Independent School District in that they payed 1 million dollars to the district to have their products sold exclusively to the students. and parents do pay for other students through the robin hood program which takes money from the rich districts and gives it to the poor. all of this is done through taxes. both income taxes and property taxes pay for this system.

 

[vi edit]

They are talking about eliminating the federal Dept. of Education, not the state level of education.

 

[BA]

Gandalf, the FEDERAL government is not the only level of government in this nation. I'm 19, and will probably be voting for Harry Browne. I don't know about you, but I trust Topeka(school board aside, but the last election took care of that) much more than Washington.

"Other than eliminating the Department of Education, none of this is new. Texas (my home state) already has a "true market in education". parents can send their kids to any school they want. pay a fee and send them to a different school district. pay another and send them to a private school. we have tax credits for parents and vouchers have been proposed. the financial incentives for businesses is advertising. Dr. Pepper, is the official sponsor of Plano Independent School District in that they payed 1 million dollars to the district to have their products sold exclusively to the students. and parents do pay for other students through the robin hood program which takes money from the rich districts and gives it to the poor. all of this is done through taxes. both income taxes and property taxes pay for this system. "

Good for Texas. What did the US Department of Education do to bring this about? What do we need it for?

 

[Gandalf511]

i found those statistics you guys are ridiculing me over. the numbers are truly staggering. i'll let you guys form your own opinions while i decipher them a bit more for myself. the link for the british stats are :
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/sexoffend1.html
and click on the excel link at the bottom of the page.
the us info can be found at:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance.htm#Crime
you'll have to look around to find everything but i'm sure you'll all be fully capable of navigating.

 

[BA]

Someone want to go and see what those UK stats are, since I don't have anything installed that will read excel files? However, the link says 1990-97, so I don't know what you're trying to prove. There were still plenty of guns running around Britain then.

 

[inquis]

DiRF said

QUOTE:
"I don't know if this is a joke or not. Libertarians who propose such uncaring and indifferent policies expect us to suddenly become generous? Isn't there a conflict of philosophies here?"

I think that the point is is that the government should not be the ones that are generous, the people should. I think this would be a better model than we have now. For example, look at what is happening now. The government, with welfare and Social Security, is in the redistribution-of-wealth business, and although it does help sometimes, it also seems to have a propensity for fouling up. Now, this fouling up tends to come from one politician or the other that says to himself (or herself) "oh, look, we have this large pile of money we aren't doing anything with... let's just spend some of it now... we won't have to deal with the consequences for 30 years, and by that time I won't be in office anymore."

But why do politicians feel this need to spend? I read a great post on /. the other day that had quoted someone who was talking about the downfall of the Athenan republic. The interesting part of the quote that I think is relavant to this argument can be paraphrased thusly: "Democracies work well until the people figure out that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. Thereafter, the candidate who wins the election will always be the one who promises the most money from the treasury."

This is an interesting view to have, and if you look at the last few presidential elections you will find that this certainly is the case. We are already on this road. Now, I would contend that the best way to head this viscious cycle of taxing and spending triggered by voter greed off would be to remove the power to tax and spend HUGE amounts of money from the government. Voter education is not going to do the trick.

The government exists to protect the rights enumerated in the constitution and to represent the Union of States to other nations. That's it. As it is now, the government has their hands in everyone's pockets (look at your last paycheck... look at the amount coming out for Social Securit. You dig?), and when this government catches the scent of ca$h, sweet ca$h, it is not satisfied for just a whiff. Libertarians propose that the people cut off their nose.

I welcome responses.

-inq

 

[BoberFett]

You've summed things up pretty well inquis.

 

[inquis]

Hmm... is there an anti-Red Dawn sentiment here? I have not posted for long enough to know. Is this when this discussion degenerates into a flamefest?

I hope not.

Hello, Red Dawn!

-inq

 

[Gandalf511]

waiting for any kind of response to those statistics

 

[inquis]

Gandalf,

QUOTE:
"the entire point of the libertarian party seems to be to cut the government down to the least possible structure that still works."

Why is this a bad thing? What else would you suggest? I for one would rather have the government out of my affairs, rather than in them. The government described by the Constitution actually has a very narrow scope of powers; basically, they provide for the national defense, represent the States to other Nations, and regulate interstate commerce. Most all other powers were given to the states, which are closer to the people and can do more good. You would propose a bigger government? That's exactly what the Founding Fathers were fighting against: a large, oppressive, unresponsive government (the King of England). Does this sound like our government now? I think it does.

"waiting for any kind of response to those statistics"

I looked at the statistics. They are compelling. Crime is dropping, and that is a good thing. However, you have to answer a question before you can chalk this up as a victory: did tight gun control measures specifically cause this difference? I will remind you that correlation does not imply causation, but you already knew that.

Also, there is another statistic that I will have to look up that is also compelling, and that is violent crimes using illegally obtained weapons vs. violent crimes using legally obtained weapons. What gun control advocates choose to ignore is that the vast majority of violent crimes that involve a gun involve an ILLEGALLY acquired gun rather than a LEGALLY acquired gun. This is our main objection to the state of gun control in America today: criminals who are going to commit a crime are not going to walk into a gun shop, fill out all these forms that tie the gun to them, and acquire a legal weapon. Instead, they go on the streets, get a pocket rocket for 50$, and have at it. We are emphasizing that resources would be better spent in enforcement of the legislation on the books rather than in new legislation.

I eagerly await your response.

-inq

 

[Gandalf511]

first let me say that i appreciate inq's response, and that i think most of you have been quite eloquent speakers. i know my abilities don't match many of yours but i feel i've got facts on my side. also i was just making sure i understood the point of the party in reducing government so there would be no argument about the topic later.

there is no such thing as a specific cause of crime crime rates. however, i do believe that stricter gun laws (rather than the current or the proposed no gun laws) would help to greatly reduce murder, rape and other violent crime against the person. while trying to find the british stats, i found a chart that showed the murder rates compared by state to the gun related arrests in those states.

http://home.att.net/~Resurgence/L-guncontrol.htm

as inq said this does show that illegal guns are often used in crime. the article also shows that it is possible to inforce the current gun laws and in so doing greatly reduce gun related crime. i think this example of enforcement in the US and the british crime rates both show that gun laws do help to prevent gun related crime. i look forward to any responses

 

[inquis]

Gandalf, correct me if I am wrong, but you proved my own point.

If I am not mistaken, you have been contending that more and stricter gun control is necessary, and what I have been contending is that more gun control is not necessary but instead that the EXISTING gun control legislation should be enforced.

Also, this begs the question: are some types of gun control better than others? I would contend that for now I really don't have an issue with the laws regarding WHO guns can be sold to (no felons, no mental incompentents, age limit depending on the state); however, I _do_ have an issue with the laws regarding WHAT TYPES of guns CAN be sold. If you are selling to law-abiding citizens, who cares what type of gun you are selling them -- a small Glock or a colt m4a1 carbine? As long as the citizen that you are selling the gun to has the knowledge and intelligence necessary to own the gun properly, then it would not be a problem.

Now, this change in gun control law would help promote wider gun ownership, and I contend that this would be beneficial as well. Say you are a criminal, and realize that most non-violent crimes against property are done without the aid of a weapon. Given two houses, one whose owner owns a gun, one whose owner does not, whose house would you choose to rob? Sure as hell _I_ would NOT go into the house with the GUN. Or consider late at night a young, pretty woman is walking down the road. You are a rapist, standing around a corner. If, because of wider handgun ownership by law-abiding citizens, you were uncertain whether or not that girl had a gun in her purse, would that make you think twice about doing anything? I would contend that it would.

Now, would any of these measures prevent premeditated crime? Of course not. Think about the premeditated Columbine. What could have stopped those people? If they did not get guns, they would have killed people with bombs. If they did not kill people with bombs, they would have killed them with knives. If they did not kill people with knives, they would have killed them with bricks, or rocks, or their own hands. Thus was their conviction.

How do you stop this? I would contend that it could be done one of two ways: a government Thought Police, straight from 1984, would get the job done. Stop crimes before they start. However, I hope you would agree with me that this would not be an option, and I also hope you realize that this is what would happen in the farthest extreme. I realize that I am setting up a slippery slope, but I hope you realize that if we ever got on this slope (IMHO, we are clinging to the edge) this is where it would lead us. The second option? Head this type of behavior off at the pass by stronger, more healthy communities. This is something the government CANNOT do in its current state. I know you will argue with me at this point, but let me remind you: when you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

I eagerly await your response.

-inq

 

[inquis]

whoops, forgot to say one thing.

QUOTE:
"i do believe that stricter gun laws (rather than the current or the proposed no gun laws) would help to greatly reduce murder, rape and other violent crime against the person."

This is what you said, Gandalf.

QUOTE:
"...enforcing gun control laws will reduce behavior that is tied to higher murder rates."

This is what the site that you linked to said. (http://home.att.net/~Resurgence/L-guncontrol.htm) Now correct me if I have taken this out of context, but this sounds highly contradictory on your part. I encourage any interested parties to read that piece of material on that site and see of you agree with me. That piece goes into depth as to how effective ENFORCEMENT OF CURRENT LAWS is in reducing violent crime, not MAKING NEW, STRICTER LAWS.

I eagerly await your response.

-inq

 

[Gandalf511]

inq, i think you miss the point. this chat has been a thread between me and the libertarians, and one of the libertarians main points is to abolish gun control laws. i have been trying to find facts that show that the stricter the gun control law, the fewer murders and violent crime against the person committed. while you may not agree with that, you have said that the current gun control laws should be inforced, and that was my original point.

as for the type of gun available, why does anyone need a colt carbine? one does not use a carbine for hunting or self defense. if you try to go hunint with one, though it would be fun, you will come back with a carcass riddled with bullet holes. if you try to defend yourself against a criminal with the handgun, in close quarters, you've got no benifit with the fully automatic rifle. it's harder to aim, to move, and it slows you down. my question is, what would possibly do with a carbine or any other automatic weapon?

 

[inquis]

Gandalf:

QUOTE:
"inq, i think you miss the point. this chat has been a thread between me and the libertarians, and one of the libertarians main points is to abolish gun control laws. i have been trying to find facts that show that the stricter the gun control law, the fewer murders and violent crime against the person committed. while you may not agree with that, you have said that the current gun control laws should be inforced, and that was my original point."

I would disagree. You found statistics that found that the better enforcement of gun control laws is, the lower crime is. This is a far cry from just enacting new legislation, which if I am not mistaken is what you suggested in a post above and I pointed out a little bit later. You realize that new legislation without enforcement will just effect the people that would comply with the law without having to be coerced by law enforcement, that is, the already law-abiding citizenry.

Also, I do not think that the most die-hard Libertarian would ever suggest that we extend the right to own a firearm to felons, or the mentally incompetent. These laws I know that _I_ have no objection to; of other Libertarians do, then feel free to refute me. However, I do object to laws restricting what TYPE of gun that I am allowed to own.

To your second point: I would say that your attacking my right to own whatever gun I want to own based on what you think I may or may not use it for is fallacial. If you think about it, what do all guns do? All guns are designed to throw small pieces of metal or rubber out of the end of a barrel with a high rate of speed and accuracy. The Carbine fills this role just as well as the Glock, don't you agree?

Also, for certain users, a Glock is more useful than a Carbine, or a Carbine is more useful than a Glock. However, the usefulness of the gun, again, is not a good reason for telling someone that they shouldn't be able to own one. I think you agree with me that a small handgun would not be effective for hunting. Does this mean we should deny everybody the right to own the Glock, just as you would deny everybody the right to own the Carbine?

Finally, before I hop into the shower and go to class, I have noticed that you as of yet have failed to answer one of my key points from last time, and that is that wider gun ownership by the law-abiding citizenry would reduce crime. Do you concede this point?

I eagerly await your response.

-inq

 

[inquis]

Also, I would enjoy debating other points with you, if we could ever get away from gun control. Liberals can be sometimes oddly inflexible, and so if this gun control debate starts to go nowhere fast, feel free to bring up another topic.

-inq

 

[Gandalf511]

i disagree that as gun ownership in law abiding citizens goes up this helps reduce crime. if you can find any kind of statistic to back that up, please post it but otherwise i believe the less guns there are out there, the harder it is for a criminal to get his hands on one. as far as assualt rifles go, i do not see why anyone needs one as there is no practical use other than to kill many people and at long range is (ie sniper rifles, ak's, carbines, etc.). i think that if you want guns in the house, a shotgun should be the limit of it, as it is a great weapon to kill an invader, hard to hide outside the house (ie no one walks into a mall without someone noticing they're carrying a shotgun).

 

[jaydee]

Yes but Japan, and Britain were less violent then the U.S. before they outlawed guns, so your point is moot.




<< i believe the less guns there are out there, the harder it is for a criminal to get his hands on one. >>



I believe your wrong. What are you going to do, order business' to stop producing guns? Do you really feel safer, if you have a shotgun and an intruder has an oozie? And the point of Libertarians is too abolish gun laws. There are no logical gun laws out there that work effectivly, so whats the point of having them. When will you learn that law abiding citizens will turn their guns in but law-breakers by definition, break the law. Therefore, you are striping the innocent from their RIGHT. Notice: right, not priveledge. Take a look at harrybrowne.org and you will find all this stuff. He says it better than I can so I will refrain from speaking out about gun laws in this thread any longer. You want to know what I think? Look at the site, it will explain everything. I am tired of repeating myself.

Another point you tried to make earlier was on the Articles of Confederation. This has nothing to do with Libertarians. We are holding the government accountable for the Constitution and keep them from overstepping their boundries which they have done again and again.

Any other topics you want discussed? War on drugs? Affirmative Action? Enviroment? or any other failed government program you want to make a case for?

 

[BoberFett]

Gandalf

You keep bringing up the same issue over and over again, and it's one of the big differences between free men and servants.

<< i do not see why anyone needs one >>

Free men decide on their own what they do and do not need. Servants are told by their masters what they need. I'd prefer freedom, apparently you do not.

 

[inquis]

Gandalf,

QUOTE:
&quot;i disagree that as gun ownership in law abiding citizens goes up this helps reduce crime. if you can find any kind of statistic to back that up, please post it&quot;

Correlation does not imply causation; I don't know how much a bare statistic could help out my case. However, a bare statistic, backed by some logic could. I'll see what I can do, and respond to this thread.

QUOTE:
&quot;i believe the less guns there are out there, the harder it is for a criminal to get his hands on one.&quot;

I diagree. Your statement should be qualified to read as follows: &quot;I believe the less guns there are out there AVAILABLE FROM ILLEGAL CHANNELS, the harder it is for a criminal to get his hands on one.&quot; We have already talked about how a criminal would acquire a gun, and you did not seem to object to my assertion that most criminals would acquire their guns from illegal channels. So, what is the logic in restricting the availability of guns through LEGAL channels? I contend that any such restriction is illogical. Enforcement efforts should be focused on getting illegal weapons out of the hands of criminals. Allow me to point you back to this statistic, which you so thoughtfully pointed me to: http://home.att.net/~Resurgence/L-guncontrol.htm.

QUOTE from the web site:
&quot;One of the most remarkable examples was a 1992-93 Kansas City experiment
by the National Institute of Justice. There, police officers in a large
section of the inner city agreed to work overtime to remove illegal guns
from the streets. During these overtime shifts, they were given no other
responsibilities but to search for and confiscate illegal weapons. This
heightened enforcement (of existing gun laws) lasted 29 weeks. The study
compared the crime rate during this period to the prior 29 weeks; it also
compared the &quot;target area&quot; with a &quot;comparison area&quot;
which experienced no changes in its normal police duties. The population
of the target area was almost entirely nonwhite and had a crime rate 20
times the national average.

&quot;The results were dramatic. Seizures of illegal guns in the target area
climbed 65 percent above normal, while they actually declined somewhat
in the comparison area. Meanwhile, gun crimes declined 49 percent in
the target area. Drive-by shootings fell from 7 to 1 in the time periods
compared. The rates for other types of crime did not change, but -- most significantly -- there appeared to be no spillover of crime from the target
area into surrounding areas.&quot;

ENFORCEMENT, ENFORCEMENT, ENFORCEMENT. Look how much crime was reduced when ILLEGAL guns were seized. Look what happened when hte existing laws were ENFORCED. What I am arguing is that the current administration instead of enforcing current laws is passing more restrictive gun control measures that only effect those people who acquire their guns from legal channels; that is, the law-abiding citizenry. The right laws are already on the books, they are just not getting enforced.

QUOTE:
&quot;i do not see why anyone needs one as there is no practical use other than to kill many people and at long range is&quot;

If you know much philosophy, especially ancient greek philosophy, you will know what the axioms of definition are. Based on this statement, it seems that your definition of &quot;gun&quot; is &quot;device designed to effeciently kill people&quot;. *Definitions canot be defined by examples.*

A more correct definition of a gun is &quot;a device that launches a small pellet of metal from the end of barrel by means of the rapid expansion of gases.&quot;

From this point, I will reduce your argument to absurdidity. What is the difference between a shotgun and an assault rifle? They both obviously fit this definition of &quot;gun&quot; that I have given. However, the assault rifle has a higher rate of fire, a low spread, a long range, etc, etc. The shotgun (pump action? automatic?) has a huge spread and the capability to do massive damage at close range, coupled with a piss poor rate of fire and an extremely low effective range.

Now, both these guns have differing capabilities, but they are both guns. Why should it be said that it is &quot;good&quot; to have one, but &quot;bad&quot; to have the other? One is not better than the other, they are just different. Since they are all basically the same, it is meaningless to have some and not all the rest. Therefore, either you have guns or you do not have guns. Which of these two options would you pick?

QUOTE:
&quot;(ie no one walks into a mall without someone noticing they're carrying a shotgun)&quot;

A shotgun is a long arm. Therefore, do you mean that you think long arms are &quot;good&quot; because they can't be easily concealed and small arms are &quot;bad&quot; because they can? So it follows, you would support the banning of all handguns, but the availability of all types of &quot;sniper rifles, ak's, carbines, etc&quot; because they are long arms, even though you contend &quot;there is no practical use other than to kill many people and at long range&quot;? You have contradicted yourself. I suggest you concede this point.

I eagerly await your response.

-inq