From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: New Libertarian Gun Control Book
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 10:52:49 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.142338.27932@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
}In article <1992Dec17.091446.20391@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
}>In article <1992Dec16.173115.295@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
}>>
}>>I don't understand why you call this book libertarian.  Kopel closes the
}>>book with the comment that gun controls should be left up to the states
}>>and not the federal government.  Huh ?  That's pretty unlibertarian IMO.
}>>A libertarian would say, there should be no gun control laws federal,
}>>state or local.  He says other countries laws are okay for those countries.
}>>Excuse me ?  If the RKBA is really valid it should be valid elsewhere,
}>>not just the USA.
}>
}>While I haven't finished it yet, I can see it being moderately libertarian.
}>It's theoretically possible to have some sort of gun policy which could
}>be constitutional;
}
}I don't mean to be glib but what does the US constitution have to do with
}libertarianism ?  Granted there is some intersection in the US constitution
}and one that would govern a libertarian society but the US constitution is
}very non-libertarian.

No, not very unlibertarian at all if you buy Epstein's argument.  He
works from common law principles of restitution for takings, and argues that
common-law and natural rights interpretation of the US constitution lead to
much more libertarian conclusions than most conservatives or "liberals"
would like.  There's a reason Joe Biden waved "Takings" at Clarence Thomas
and asked: "Are you now or have you ever been a libertarian?"  Of course,
I paraphrase...

}>certainly you don't think that Israel's armory-libraries infringe upon
}>the RKBA!
}
}That's an interesting question.  On the one hand, you could argue
}that having to pay the taxes to support the government armory reduces
}your ability to arm yourself with weapons of your own choosing, so that
}could be interpreted as an infringement.
}
}On the other hand if you believe, as I do, the government should be
}responsible [whatever that means] for the national defense it is
}going to have to collect money somehow to pay for it, and it is certainly
}arguable that the government should provide training and equipment on
}demand to citizens if the situation, as in Israel, supports it.
}
}Another problem with the armory-libraries is that only the "right people"
}are allowed to sign out weapons.  I bet you won't see many Palestinians
}(sp?) in there.

Having gotten to Kopel's chapter on Switzerland, I agree with you that
taxes to support a citizen militia may be justifiable.

}>And if some policy meets takings clause constraints, then BINGO!
}
}Okay, the policy should be "leave the people alone" in every way shape
}and form.

Largely, I agree.  However, if foreign invasion can be deterred by taxation
to buy everyone a gun, then I'd say that was just compensation of private
property taken for public use, wouldn't you?

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire