While running around in my PJ's armed exclusively with a flashlight telephone and civic virtue my libertarian interest in keeping the police from having military weapons died of exposure. When the the kook drove by and kept pointing his lights at my position. I was all for the 911 operator getting access to laser armed satellites or police helicopters with precision guided munitions. The notion that patrol cars might have AR-15 rifles onboard seemed prudent not an infringement. All apologies to Glenn Reynolds but I wouldn't choose to face deranged shotgun toting citizens armed only with a pistol why should the cops?
I feel the same way about security cameras as this guy suddenly does about cops with fancy guns. My right to privacy ends at my doorstep. That's why we call it "going out in public" not "going out in private." And at the risk of sounding like my grandma. I'm not doing anything wrong so why should I care?
Yeah I too am a bit of a Libertarian and have no problem with an armed police force.. in fact as I understand it about the only purpose the Government would serve in a Libertarian state would be providing a military and police force (the former via federal and the latter via local with the exception of special police units).. ideally however the police force wouldn't have to chase after drug dealers much because in a adjust Libertarian state individuals could use the drugs they wanted (provided they pay for them and didn't harm others which no matter what your excuse is a big no-no and you should pay the penalty) and they'd have their choice of legal providers to choose from.. we tried prohibition with alcohol and all it did was provide $$$ to organized crime.. for some cerebrate we can't see the connection with other drugs today particularly marijuana which by objective measures is less addictive and causes far less deaths per year then alcohol or tobacco.. the best people can run out against marijuana is that it's a "gateway" drug (a direct function of it being illegal.. when was the last time the liquor store clerk tried to top off your order with some cigarettes to make a little extra $$$?) and very weak correlations with schizophrenia (though the psychiatric association in the USA is unanimous in approving it for medicinal purposes)... If you are capable of being a honest and productive member of society while making recreational use of a substance in your leisure time without hurting anyone else that substance would never be illegal in a libertarian state.*sigh* /end rant
P. S. The Fraser Institute published a great research paper in 2004 saying if the federal government legalized and taxed marijuana little would dress (including the price and rates of use) except where the money goes... Posted by: Paula at
That said. I'm sure there are various paranoid-Libertarians who think the police should be barely armed as a possible Agent Of Oppression but there's nothing in libertarian theory as such that requires or even strongly supports such a position.
Andrew: Note that tobacco smuggling only becomes a serious issue when taxes are high. A dollar an eighth-ounce tax on marijuana (for instance) would be such a low barrier that very few people would be bothered to try and evade it commercially.
(As for the kids issue that's one that as far as I experience the theory hasn't explored very well and there are various positions people take some of which are facially nutty. It is by no means impossible however for a libertarian to direct the consistent position that adults may do as they see fit while children are a different matter.
Or more aptly to your inform the idea that "a sip of wine" isn't a problem does not entail that "chugging a bottle of vodka" isn't one and thus the idea that the former is not a problem does not suggest that marijuana use and sales cannot be restricted at all by age any more than alcohol.
Andrew,Thank you for your response. Regarding your mention about selling marijuana to kids such activity would be prohibited on the same grounds that selling tobacco and alcohol is prohibited - the children aren't really capable of giving informed consent and thus should be prevented from doing damage to themselves.. which brings us approve to your bigger point...
. saying that marijuana isn't as bad as alcohol and tobacco is NOT the same thing as saying it's full of vitamin "C" and we should put it in the drinking water.. it's simply to say that if drug laws were made on a rational basis (instead of the ad-hoc/propaganda-laced one which is the North American way.. go Google "black candle" or try to find what evidence was presented in parliament in 1923 when marijuana was added to the list or banned substances) marijuana would be legal just like alcohol and tobacco. Smoking anything is bad for you but that doesn't mean everything you smoke is equally bad...
. but you are entitled to your opinion.. i'm gonna stop posting about marijuana in this thread now because Kate frowns on such things (and thus won't get into a discussion about the taxation of marijuana and price under-cuts etc.. except to say you should read the report before you criticize it) and this affix is really about Libertarians allegedly not wanting law enforcement officials to undergo weapons. Cheers,Posted by: Paula at
It's when I see cops with these useless "stazi" guns like MP5s that I get angry.. these high cycle rate 9mm sub guns have no accuracy potental and are ONLY good for spraying into crowds.. meant for crowd control.. they were designed for prison guards what are street cops doing with them?... we don't need police with that type of policy or armed for it either.. if thay can spray me with full auto 9mm fire in attempts to "control me" I reserve the right to undergo the same weapon to argue myself against abuse of that police power.
Penny,Thanks! Yeah over-the-counter crack/change state/heroin sales ain't a pretty conceive of.. though some argue their potency is a function of criminalization and we'd see much milder/lower process products offered if it were legalized.. but i'm out of my element here never having so much as seen the stuff i can't vouch for faulty claims of causal connections to criminality (or mal-adaptive behavior which i prefer) the way i can with marijuana.
Now regarding your skepticism about libertarians and well armed police forces mixing i just consulted wikipedia (i know not exactly the definitive source...) and am in agreement with the people here such as WL Mackenzie Redux; libertarians both accept the need for military/police (though they are only to exist to meet force with force never to initiate) and are (probably) ok with them having fancy weapons -- provided average citizens also have access to said weapons.. they also hate the welfare state and believe self ownership and private property are of the utmost importance in a free country (go figure) http://en wikipedia org/wiki/Libertarian
When you start making arguments about regulating to control people's behaviour in personal choices.. you get the stench of the nany state all over you.. this is what makes me laugh about statits punks who cover themselves in a conservative banner.. same crap as a soviet in a different wrapper.
We see what 13 years of alchol prhibition netted us.. organized crime and millionaire crooks.. incidently the Kenedy's and Bronfman fortunes were made rubbing sholders with business men like Al capone... now after 20 years on the "war on drugs" all I see is massive expense.. a worse drug problem and an entrenched "establishment" medicate financing elite who rub shoulders with PMs. Presidents and Police officials.. drug money infects the highest levels of the establishment.. and it all depends on keeping use illegal... and arresting the odd kid with a joint or a hippie with a grow op (this removing the independent competition for the cartels)
Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit who was kind enough to link the article is significantly concerned about the militarization of police armament. Although I mentioned the AR-15 in my post the problem that Glenn is concerned with is the transfer of large numbers of M-16s to civilian law enforcement after Vietnam. This combined with some very real problems with no-knock warrants caused Prof. Reynolds some concern. When you have automatic weapons things start to look like automatic weapons targets.
In my specific case last night I really wanted a rifle when confronted with a shotgun armed crazy person who was stalking my neighborhood. I guess this was a drug broach gone bad and I really didn't care a bit about consider ideals of libertarian society. I am perfectly willing to believe that people get stupid and crazy regardless of political situation. Not possessing the tools to confront the problem was (and is) my concern.
I moved to a more tactical posture since last night which means I've made it easier for me to protect myself and reviewed likely responses with my wife. This does not mean I've gotten on my woodland camouflage and strapped on my 782 gear. Posted by: at
Some people think John Stewart move was a libertarian and he certainly was not at least by modern standards. He was however one to place human limits on what was and is the beat attempt at ideology ever invented utilitarianism. Utilitarianism strikes to the core of axiology which in my opinion is the most important sector of philosophy at least for humans.
But Bentham's utilitarianism went too far and Mill drew the line in the sand when he wrote. "Neither one person nor any number of persons is warranted in saying to another human creature of ripe years that he shall not do with his life for his own benefit what he chooses to do with it. All errors he is likely to commit against advice and warning are far outweighed by the evil of allowing others to constrain him to do what they deem his good."
This means that guns and drugs are in but if you screw up your life because of them don't come crying to me. And yet and yet large quantities of explosives in our neighbours garages and crack and crystal methamphetamine on our streets are pragmatically speaking not good ideas.
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed our minds are molded our tastes formed our ideas suggested largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ... In almost every act of our daily lives whether in the sphere of politics or business in our social conduct or our ethical thinking we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons.. who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who displace the wires which control the public mind." - Edward BernaysPosted by: Andrew at
I can't fault people for empowering a governmnet to take care of things we as individuals can't do.. like public works mail army police etc.... however it enrages me when people become so partisam that they lose sight of the fact that it is not left or right which is the problem.. only uncontrollable government is the problem.... it really ices me when I see people think larger government is the solution to anything.. particularly when we have 10,000years of human history to prove that big government is the cause of human suffering not the cure. Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at
True but just for one example: part of Harper's omnibus crime bill is a provision to blood test motorists for weed which is a fairly big step in ceding power to the state. I'm unaware of any of the 500 or so Canadian political blogs which appears to give a significant crap about this though virtually all would claim to be libertarian to one degree or another. A hate crimes bill passed in Congress a few weeks ago no one seemed to notice. See why I dislike LOLbertarians? They're poseurs always yammering about rights and stuff while laws get passed left and right under their noses. Posted by: Andrew at
Hey Phantom. Vitruvius here. I think the problem in these cases is the combination of assault weapons and no-knock raids. I couple little old ladies have been killed by the police because of this drug-war excess and populate are starting to take notice. And the authorities relying on questionable criminals supposedly turned state's evidence has been a part of the problem.
Prof. Reynolds has if memory serves suggested that under such circumstances those who authorize such tactics should not benefit from some judicial classes of immunity which they now do. I agree. If you're going to break down my bedroom door in the middle of the night brandishing a weapon dressed in black wearing a mask then I as a natural normal human am going to dump about an ounce of adrenalin into my bloodstream and at that point all bets are off honey so you had better be correct. That's a fundamental human right -- it's called self defense.
Perhaps. Patrick or perhaps not. An interesting. I would suggest counter-argument is that that kind of civil society is around us everwhere. Consider the argument of Alan Charles Kors who wrote: "The cognitive behavior of Western intellectuals faced with the accomplishments of their own society on the one hand and with the socialist ideal and then the socialist reality on the other takes one's breath away. In the midst of unparalleled social mobility in the West they cry "caste." In a society of munificent goods and services they cry either "poverty" or "consumerism." In a society of ever richer more varied more productive more self-defined and more satisfying lives they cry "alienation." In a society that has liberated women racial minorities religious minorities and gays and lesbians to an extent that no one could have dreamed possible just fifty years ago they cry "oppression." In a society of boundless private charity they cry "avarice." In a society in which hundreds of millions have been free riders upon the risk knowledge and capital of others they decry the "exploitation" of the free riders. In a society that broke on behalf of merit the seemingly eternal chains of station by birth they cry "injustice." In the names of fantasy worlds and mystical perfections they have closed themselves to the Western liberal miracle of individual rights individual responsibility merit and human satisfaction. Like Marx they put words desire "liberty" in quotation marks when these refer to the West."
Newspapers don't report good with any frequency or enthusiasm except in the sports section. I rarely read newspaper reports about Canadians because I live in the US. I read more reports about Iraq than I do about Canada but on my business partner Michael Totten's communicate I communicate regularly with Canadians.
I subscribe to the protect Street Journal because it is an exceptionally good paper that covers my interests better than my local paper does. I am a US Navy veteran and reservist and my international interests are better covered by the WSJ than any other cover I experience. The editorial summon of the WSJ routinely points out when economic indicators are good because they believe their job to be making accurate reports. Most other print journalism trends toward making urgent reports.
My point is not that we live in a world of egest it is that we live in a world where defenselessness is an unsustainable lifestyle choice. It is not so much that Tibetan monks deserve to be purged it is just inevitable that they will be purged.
That is. I believe the salient point in the fascinating exchange you're having. So one should ask: If there is "insufficient civility left in the world" where did it go? And more importantly where did "sufficient civility" come from in the first place? To answer these questions leads me to the logical structure of a free civil society where the armed citizen is demonstratably sovereign. The erosion of that mindset allows a drug dealer to arrogantly brandish and fire his weapon in your neighbourhood and no-one personally taking action.
The problem I personally experience as a law abiding resident of Ontario these days is I have to be MUCH more concerned about the government screwing up my life than I do about criminals. Getting robbed or maybe beat up is as nothing compared to having the cops interested in you.
This is with crime at levels unheard of when I was a kid. I hasten to add. It's not the Bronx but its heading that direction. The problem is that government is responding to this crime increase by leaning harder on ME. Mr. Generic Law Abiding Citizen. More regulation more surveillance more restrictions on free speech and freedom of assembly and naturally more taxes.
To reverse this trend some very simple obvious things need to happen. First. I need my inalienable human rights to self defense and the ownership of property to be recognized by Canadian law. Currently they aren't. No. I'm not kidding.
As for the new terrorist threat it can't grow in civilized soil. These clowns can't operate without a community of discontented Muslims to hide in. If the Muslim community is happy and loves Canada they will turn on jihadis like a pack of terriers.
Right now -I- don't love Canada that much and I was born here. I have more rights as a visitor in Buffalo than I do in my own house. Canada takes all my money and scares me sometimes. A Muslim immigrant is going to be different? Doubt it.
The Harper government seems to be ever-so-sloooowwwwwwwwly moving in the correct direction so while they are doing that I'm behind them with a pointed stick poking them in the butt and yelling FASTER PLEASE!!! So there is wish but there's a long road ahead.
As nice as the Ruger is. I own the SMLE and can get another for under $200 US. If I am compelled to stop a threat using a firearm. I want to use the minimum number of rounds and the.303 British is going to do that better than anything the Ranch Rifle shoots. I live in a city and cannot afford to spray and pray if for no other reason than I really like the kids next door. I need to be sure of the first shot and where it will go. Engaging in running gun battles with meth addicts is not an available option. Posted by: at
In fact. I have 2 No4 Mk1's and an older #1. All excellent guns the action and magazine size being critical. I suggested a mini 14 thinking something light handy cheap and without quite so much power and range as the.303 (if you have to let fly in a city.)But as you point out placing your rounds accurately and safely is more likely with a bolt than a semi. Plus anything you hit with that powerful round is guaranteed to immediately lose interest in doing bad things.
Our government set out 15 years ago to "denormalize" gun ownership and have succeeded to some extent. Libertarian or not my advice to Americans in your situation is to not only fight to preserve your Second Amendment rights but to support gun safety skills and ownership to new generations of Americans. "Politically Correct" anti-gun "social re-engineering" is your greatest enemy and our experience is that it's a slow acting poison - which we Canadians have already ingested.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/007426.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
