From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: New Libertarian Gun Control Book
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 05:17:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.094447.11115@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.183244.10725@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>> I've read the constitution, and it makes me cringe.  About the only
>> good part, IMO, is the Bill of Rights.  What's all this rubbish about
>>"states" and "states rights", etc.  Ugh.
>
>States aren't accorded rights as I recall, but powers.

It still deserves an "Ugh!".

>>>He works from common law principles of restitution for takings, ...
>>
>>What's common law got to do with libertarianism ?  Why just that
>>concept from common law ?  Why not all of common law ?
>
>Common law embodies centuries of dispute-resolution which has much
>value to offer libertarian jurisprudes.

Yes, but it breaks down dramatically in certain situations, such
as broadcasting and other modern types of property rights.

>Philosophically, restitution is the most libertarian paradigm
>of justice, as opposed to retribution, for example.

I view restitution as compensation for an accident which results in
a loss of property or life.   Gov't "taking" of property is in no
way an "accident", it's quite deliberate, and not much better than
a thief walking away with my belongings or worse.

Do you think retribution is non-libertarian ?  I don't see why
this is a problem for libertarianism.

If someone willfully takes the life of another person they should
pay for it with their own life.  In practice I agree there is the
problem that someone could be convicted in error, but if there is
absolute certainty they deserve, at the minimum, to make little
rocks out of big rocks the rest of their natural life.

>Since 1937 the US Supreme Court has practiced a double standard
>by which free speech and other rights and liberties are accorded great
>weight and protection, but economic liberties and property rights aren't.

The framers should have been as clear with the 2nd - 10th amendments
as they were with the first.  "Congress shall make no law ...  " for
the 1st amendment is pretty damn explicit.  That the 2nd says, "...
shall not be infringed" just means anti-gun forces will argue their
proposals are not "infringements" but we all damn well know they are.

>>Taxation to pay for "necessary" gov't services is one thing and I can
>>stomach that, but when the gov't decides to "take" someones property
>>to build some public building or road that's going to far.  The gov't
>>should have no special bargaining position in the market place.  The
>>gov't should be our servant, not our master.
>>
>>Try this on for size, is this an invalid analogy, if so why ?
>>
>>    If polio [AIDS, fill in the blank] can be deterred by taxation to
>>    buy everyone a vaccine, then I'd say that was just compensation of
>>    private property taken for public use.
>
>Let's assume that there's a fatal disease that everyone will get unless they
>all get inoculated against it.  In that case, taking private property to
>pay for the inoculations would be justified, because being saved from death
>is compensation for the taking.

Perhaps, but what would a Christian Scientist say ?  Maybe he or she
would rather rely on prayer than be innoculated.  I'll bet money on
their prayers not being answered, but that's their business [as long
as they don't transmit it to anyone else].

Also, in the real world the tradeoffs aren't so clear.  There are human
costs to, say, the polio vaccine.  There is a tiny fraction of the
population for whom a polio vaccine causes serious illness and possibly
death.  In this case,  the "compensation" of being taxed for the vaccine
is "death."  Maybe someone would rather take the chance of not catching
polio than suffering with the cure.

Or, what if the vaccine cost $500,000 and the disease it cures is only
caught by a specific subset of the population ?  Why should someone who
is not part of that subset be taxed into paying for the vaccine ?

How on earth can I make this gun relevant ...

Suppose the gov't takes away all your firearms and compensates you by
providing a body guard for me ...

Just who decides what is the correct form of compensation ?  In
practice it's the goverment, not some "libertarian oracle" which
gives us the answer.  And given that a baised party is doing this
deciding we should not rely on "restitution" from the gov't as the
gov't will just maximize it's takings and minimize it's "restitution".
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns