From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: New Libertarian Gun Control Book
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 15:57:59 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.224210.3830@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>In article <1992Dec21.051734.2077@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>}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!".
>
>Not to a Constitutionalist.  Since the Federal government isn't delegated any
>powers to regulate guns, such power is reserved either to the States or to
>the people.  State policy could very well be laissez-faire.

That's why it deserves an "Ugh!"  States should not have the option of
having a restrictive policy wrt firearms.

>>>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.
>
>I don't agree with this.  Broadcasting would have been done by homestead
>if Roosevelt II hadn't nationalized the airwaves.

The technical problem with broadcasting is that the signals of
broadcaster A and broadcaster B, while not interefering with each
other, can combine to interefere with another broadcaster C who is
on a separate channel.  Now which broadcaster owns what, and has a
right to what ?  "A" can broadcast clearly, "B" can broadcast clearly,
but "C" cannot.  The "broadcaster" perspective is fraught with this
type of problem.  And what are we talking about anyway, someone has
the "right" to vibrate my electrons ?  I don't think so!  I think the
best way to do this is for receivers to have rights.  Does that fit
the "common law" model, I don't think so ?  See, "Telecommunications
in Crisis" from "The Cato Institute" for more details.

Here's another [recent] example.  Who "owns" 1-800 numbers, and what
would that mean anyway ?  The long distance phone company [who makes it
technically possible], the ld customer who invests thousands of dollars
in "phone number recognition".  If the ld phone company does, then
the customer can't take their business [and "their" ld number] to a
better ld company, if the ld customer does then the ld company is
screwed out of being able to sell that number/service to someone else
[they created it in the first place].  Are either of them going to "agree
to the right solution" ? Hell no.

>>>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.
>
>I see no reason to restrict restitution to accidents only.

Okay, I buy that [poor wording on my part before]; but I stand by my
belief that gov't should not have any special standing in the market
place.

As for forcing someone to be innoculated, who is responsible [if anyone]
if they were to die because of an allergic reaction to the innoculation ?
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns