• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Question for libertarians

Matteo Martini

Banned
M
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Messages
4,561
I am quite attracted from libertarians, and I like Ron Paul quite a lot, as you can see from my avatar.
One thing I do not understand.
How can such pacific people can be against gun control?
I mean, this is the reason to be against gun control, according to RP:

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) has a simple solution to future shooting massacres such as the one that ripped apart Virginia Tech university Monday: more guns.

"People are a little more cautious if somebody might have a gun there," the GOP presidential candidate told Politico reporters Tuesday. "A concealed gun carried by a responsible person -- that might have ended the problem that they had at Virginia Tech with one person being killed or two people being killed."
Click to expand...

But, how can you rule out that a "psycho" get one of the guns, and kills 30 people?
How can a "responsible person", take a gun, and fire back?
If he is in the midst of a massacre, he will not think about getting back to the dorm room, take his gun and go back to shoot the offender.
If he has the possibility, he will fly away.
How can RP say something like that?

What about people who can use guns under the effect of narcotics (since RP is also against criminalizing some kind of drugs)?

Am I missing something?
 
Matteo Martini said:
How can such pacific people can be against gun control?
Click to expand...

The position comes from a political principle, rather than a rational argument.

Matteo Martini said:
...how can you rule out that a "psycho" get one of the guns, and kills 30 people?
Click to expand...

You can't.

Matteo Martini said:
Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

I think you're attempting to find a rational explanation for a position that is informed by a basic principle rather than reason.

NOTE: That previous sentence isn't meant to suggest that I think gun control is a good thing. I'm simply trying to answer your question.

If you want me to explain what I mean in more detail, let me know.
 
Matteo Martini said:
If he is in the midst of a massacre, he will not think about getting back to the dorm room, take his gun and go back to shoot the offender.
Click to expand...

If he is a concealed carry permit holder there is a likely chance that he has his weapon with him in the classroom instead of stored back in the dorm room. Libertarians would also allow unconcealed carry permits,1 so that some criminals would be deterred from their crimes by seeing potential victims carrying handguns.

. . . . . . . .
(1) Libertarians probably would not require permits for unconcealed carrying of firearms.
 
How can Ron Paul talk about "responsible people" with guns, when he clearly also intends to extend gun ownership to his own voter base?
 
Megaresp said:
I think you're attempting to find a rational explanation for a position that is informed by a basic principle rather than reason...if you want me to explain this in more detail, let me know
Click to expand...
Matteo Martini said:
Please, do.
Click to expand...

In broad terms, libertarianism is concerned with individual liberty. Freedom to act as one pleases, as long as those actions don't force others to act contrary to their own will, is a fundamental libertarian principle.

This informs the libertarian position on many issues, including gun control.

A rational argument in support of gun control is unlikely, in and of itself, to negate the fundamental attraction of libertarianism to libertarians.

In my opinion, this is essentially the same thing as the overwhelming evidence for evolution being unable to change the minds of creationists.

I am a libertarian, and I find something overwhelmingly attractive in the idea of individual freedom and responsibility. This informs my own view on gun control.

I grew up in a country that has fairly strict gun control laws, and currently live in a country with very strict gun control. There is a huge difference in the rate of gun-related homicides here versus the US (in our favour). I think it's highly likely that gun control, ultimately, results in fewer gun-related homicides.

But I don't really care. I'm opposed to the idea of gun control on principle. I don't regard my position as rational, but I hold it anyway.

I think you're attempting to find a rational argument for no gun control because you find yourself attracted to libertarianism in general.

My point is, there may not be a rational argument. So you face a choice. One way to express it is like this...

  • Your rational mind concludes one thing
  • Your heart overrules
 
megaresp said:
In broad terms, libertarianism is concerned with individual liberty. Freedom to act as one pleases, as long as those actions don't force others to act contrary to their own will, is a fundamental libertarian principle.
Click to expand...

Yes. Of course, there are certain cynics, such as me, who point out that "being forced to take a bullet and die" is "contrary to my own will", and therefore have no more problems with forcing you not to carry guns than we have with forcing you not to pour raw sewage into the community drinking water.

Oh, wait,... libertarians are opposed to environmental limitations, too. So maybe a better analogy would be "forcing you to allow me to ramble freely over your land and gather mushrooms to feed myself and my family."

Oh, wait,... libertarians are opposed to that as well. So maybe a better analogy would be "forcing you not to offer drugs for sale that have been clearly shown to be ineffective."

Oh, wait,... libertarians are opposed to drug regulations, too.

So a better description, when you actually look at the libertarian platform, is that "Freedom to act as one pleases, regardless of the consequence of those actions to others, is a fundamental libertarian principle.

The real problem is that libertarianism is sociopathy in a three-piece suit. In broad terms, libertarianism is concerned with MY freedom to act as I please, without YOU being able to impose any restraint whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
megaresp said:
No it isn't.



No it isn't.
Click to expand...

Keep telling yourself that. It won't make you right, but it will make you less credible -- which I approve of, as it makes the Libertarians and Ronulans even more politically irrelevant.
 
megaresp said:
But I don't really care. I'm opposed to the idea of gun control on principle. I don't regard my position as rational, but I hold it anyway.
Click to expand...

That's true. In the Libertarian world-view, am I allowed to own a nuclear weapon and carry around a rocket-launcher in public?
 
Robert A. Heinlein wrote a short story in which the carrying of weapons (some kind of hand laser, IIRC) was the norm and those who went unarmed wore brassards signifying such. That society had developed elaborate rules of courtesy and decorum. Logical, if you consider that deliberate rudeness and/or bad behavior would get you challenged to a duel that might result in your death.

We live in an increasingly rude, crude, selfish, sometimes dangerous, culture. Going armed is difficult to impossible for most of us. It's specifically prohibited by my employer, for example.

Gun control is a perennial hot button topic in the US. It's political suicide to advocate strict controls or bans. That pretty much leaves one viable political position for candidates.

My question to libertarians has to do with education. If the government shouldn't be in the school business, who should? Should there be government mandated requirements for school curricula? Or should it be thrown to the open market idea and the schools that produce the best-educated people would succeed while schools that fail to adequately educate their students would simply go out of business?

I have some big problems with all-private schooling. This is the US, after all, and the majority of private schools existent now are religious. Can this country afford a private school system that will continue to educate children in superstition and nonsense?
 
Matteo, are you perhaps concerned about Ron Paul's version of pacifism? The kind of pacifism that makes him dismiss the idea of the US Government helping the people of Darfur?
 
Undesired Walrus said:
That's true. In the Libertarian world-view, am I allowed to own a nuclear weapon and carry around a rocket-launcher in public?
Click to expand...

Actually, there is another way to answer such a question.

A libertarian society of some kind need not be as you imagine. For example, imagine a city owned by a private entity. One's citizenship in such a state would be provided by consent of the owner(s), and under contract. That contract may well forbid the ownership of private weapons.

The problem with all theoretical barbed hooks such as yours, is they imply the kind of civil structures we're used to.

Yet a libertarian society could, in theory, have a communist regime within in it (albeit and ironically under some kind of ownership).

My point is, it's not possible to know in advance what a libertarian society might be like, because the principle of ownership allows for any kind of society you might image, assuming you (or some like-minded group), have the resources to create it.
 
Last edited:
drkitten said:
Keep telling yourself that. It won't make you right, but it will make you less credible -- which I approve of, as it makes the Libertarians and Ronulans even more politically irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Less credible than who?
 
megaresp said:
imagine a city owned by a private entity. One's citizenship in such a state would be provided by consent of the owner(s), and under contract. That contract may well forbid the ownership of private weapons.
Click to expand...

So if I want to have private weapons, I can just move to another city where the contract allows it.

But supposing I cannot find enough like-minded people to set up a city contract where the contract allows me to have a nuclear weapon - hardly an unlikely scenario since who would want to live in a city like that?

And if I blow all my money on my bomb, I don't have enough left to buy sufficient land to keep it on without infringing the rights of the neighbouring landowners if I detonate it.

My rights are apparently purely dependent on my ability to pay for them. In consequence I'm just as nukeless then as I am now. How does libertarianism help me?
 
megaresp said:
It doesn't. I suggest you abandon your reckless pursuit of liberty.
Click to expand...

That's it, I'm voting Green Party this time :mad:

(They won't let me have nuclear weapons either, but they will send me a lovely poster of a whale when I sign up)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom