Uechi-Ryu.com

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Panther said: I never wrote "spur of the moment" crime. I specifically referred to "spur of the moment" shootings and also pointed out the rarity and referred to lawful gun owners as opposed to criminals. The fact is that the gun grabber agenda hasn't done anything to reduce crime by lawful gun owners because that crime is statistically insignificant

Okay, correction taken. The only point I'm making with this tangent is that if gun restrictions did have an effect on "spur of the moment" crimes involving guns (and this is what I'm talking about, not just shootings neccesarily) it would have precisely the effect of making crimes committed by lawful gun owners with their guns become statistically significant. I'm not saying that this has definitely happened, just pointing out that the argument that lawful gun owners commit few crimes with their guns could perfectly well be used as evidence that we're only giving trustworthy people licenses.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
If you or anyone else can't control your own actions/reactions, then I whole heartedly agree that you should not have firearms. Then again, you shouldn't have knives, baseball bats, be allowed to learn a martial art, or be allowed to own and operate the far more deadly automobile<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly my point. Do you think that people should have to get a license to drive cars? How about to fly commercial passenger planes? How about to practice medicine? These are all things that have the potential for catastrophic misuse, how are guns different?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Suggesting that the crime must include "hacking someone to death" or "where someone just wants to kill someone else" is typical of the HCI misinformation and intellectually dishonest statistical manipulation and lies. My scenerio was to prove a point.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And I think that in order to prove your point you established a scenario that is artificially difficult to intercept. Would you say a statistically significant proportion of home invasions are concluded within the time it took you to conclude your example? I find that hard to believe.
As for the story about the women who was murdered in an undeniably horrible way, I think it is beside the point. Furthermore, you often object to the emotional appeals made by gun control advocates, but putting this story in your post was no better.


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>How very nice of you to only quote the beginning of my point when responding in that fashion. I said that in order for the police to be capable of protecting each of us that there would by necessity have to be an officer assigned to each of us full-time... and that by definition is a Police State, a place that I don't want to live. But, you cut all that off. But my other part still stands. If we, the people are disarmed, we can NOT defend ourselves or our communities... a Statist's wet dream!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The only reason I edit the responses is to try and make it clear what I'm responding to. For example, the rhetoric about disarming people being a Statist's wet dream, or the existance of a police state, which I was certainly not arguing for, are not the things I was responding to. Sometimes you say that I am putting words in your mouth, but to me it appears that your statements about a police state are putting words in my mouth. I don't mind so much, and usually I just ignore it when, I'll try to quote your passages in their entirety from now on.

Anyway... the point I was making about the police is that if everyone is allowed a gun, police and citizens alike, the citizens wouldn't be any better at defending eachother than the police.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
As far as the supposed "rebuttals" of Lott's work. First, there's the one from the Aussie gun grabber. You know, the place where they banned guns from private ownership and crime rates have soared. Now that's a place that we want to copy... NOT! Second, there's the one from HCI. You know the folks that have lied, skewed statistics by ommission and misrepresentation and have stated in private memoranda that they A) are willing to intentionally mislead the public in order to further their agenda and B) have the ultimate goal of completely disarming the entire American private citizenry!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, I will admit they're biased. Guess what, foxnews and the washingtimes, and the reporters who wrote those stories aren't unbiased either. But regardless of bias, did you bother reading their refutations? Do you have anything to say about the problems they spoke of with the study, or did you just assume that because they're in favor of gun control that they must be incorrect? I read one (though I may not have posted it) from someone who claimed to be a gun owner and in favor of guns, but who thought that the study was flawed apart from it's social message. As fr whether HCI lies or not, I'm perfectly willing to believe that any organization is willing to lie for their cause. Gun advocates have just as much reason to lie about their position as gun-control activists. That's why on all of these studies you have to look at what they say closely, and it doesn't sound like you did that.

On the Lott "rebuttals":

Just to be complete I asked a mutual friend to contact John and have him get in touch with me. (BTW & FYI, this isn't something I generally do with someone as busy as John Lott is, but felt that this was one of those times I'd call in a favor. )

<blockquote>
-----Original Message-----
From: JohnRLott@(deleted).com
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 1:35 AM
To: (real name of Panther deleted)
Subject: RE: Rebuttals of your research?


The second web site address was originally put together by Handgun Control.
Some one merely copied it and put it on this web site. My book extensively goes through these claims in both chapters 7 and 9 (this last chapter is only in the second edition).

The first and second web site are actually from the same source. A guy named Tim Lambert. Chapter 9 in my second edition goes through some of the more important points that he listed at the time. A lot of what he claims are distortions of what I wrote. For example, he constantly made a big deal about ccw's supposedly not affecting robbery rates. The comments that I make about others on this point are also applicable to this.

Good Luck, (name of Panther deleted)

John
</blockquote>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Valkenar:

Do you think that people should have to get a license to drive cars? How about to fly commercial passenger planes? How about to practice medicine? These are all things that have the potential for catastrophic misuse, how are guns different?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me think about this for a nanosecond... No. No. No. No. Yep, that sums it up nicely.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

And I think that in order to prove your point you established a scenario that is artificially difficult to intercept. Would you say a statistically significant proportion of home invasions are concluded within the time it took you to conclude your example? I find that hard to believe.

No. Some take longer, some take less time. It was an example. A scenerio. Tell me how I rigged that scenerio. I made a long story short for that post, but for clarification, here's a longer version of how that went down (not that I give a rat's @$$ about explaining my actions to you)... I opened the back door of the house and yelled out while closing the door loudly, then I counted to 20 slowly and loudly. (Fair and ample warning. In a real break-in, smashing the back door window, reaching in and unlocking it and entering would have been just as quick.) My friend heard me immediately upon entering the back door and was already beating feet upstairs by the time I had even closed the door. I walked slowly through the house, through a few different rooms and up the stairs. I did not chase her, I did not run, I walked slowly. The fact is that if I had wanted to, I could have prevented the phone call from occuring at all! But that wasn't the point. Upon getting upstairs, I did not proceed directly to the master bedroom, I looked in every other room on the way (IOW, I took my own sweet happy time about it) and when I got to the master bedroom door, I could hear her talking on the phone. I loudly counted again and then entered the room (it would have been much quicker if I had been a real criminal and just kicked in the damn door), whereupon I took from her and hung up the phone (a real assailant would have simply yanked the thing from the wall). Yes, at this point it was a game. She trying not to get wet and marked up and me trying to get her wet and mark her up. True enough, we had some good-natured fun at that point... mainly because she had figured out by that time that if it were a real situation, she would much rather have a handgun than the telephone. In fact, she even used some of her martial arts skills, which I played along with... until I just decided to shoot her (with water, of course) When we were done with our "fun" I told her she had to "play dead" and I sat down with her to wait. I said, "wow, I'm tired... and hungry" and she laughingly responded, "this is (name deleted)'s ghost... there's fresh coldcuts in the fridge..." I laughed and went to the bathroom to clean up, then went and fixed a sandwich. I was back upstairs with the snack and a glass of water basically finished when my friend (the hubby) came in the bedroom door. I looked at him and said, "good roast beef... oh and (name deleted)'s a real hottie. Too bad she's 'dead'..." She went and got cleaned up and they asked me how they could learn about guns and real self-defense. (Did I mention that they're both black belt former instructors? FYI, They are... and now they're both certified firearms instructors.) So... How was I unfair in making my point?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

As for the story about the women who was murdered in an undeniably horrible way, I think it is beside the point. Furthermore, you often object to the emotional appeals made by gun control advocates, but putting this story in your post was no better.

Interesting... When the Statist grabbers do it, there isn't a problem, but I use it as a real world example of how a "non-violent" crime can turn violent in a hurry (in response to your assertion that "My understanding is that cases where someone just wants to kill someone else are pretty rare") and you call me on the carpet for using an emotional argument! While I can see your point, the fact is that I should be allowed to use any legitimate debating technique that those who are willing to stomp on my Rights and blow their noses on the Constitution are allowed to use.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Anyway... the point I was making about the police is that if everyone is allowed a gun, police and citizens alike, the citizens wouldn't be any better at defending each other than the police.

That is a flawed conclusion, a flawed premise, and a flawed argument. If everyone is allowed a gun, police and citizens alike, then the benefits multiply. First the criminals don't know who is armed or when, meaning that (at least according to research done with violent prisoners) 60% of them will avoid doing the crime in the first place! Second, private citizens are far more numerous than police (as it shoud be) and having those private citizens potentially being armed means a greater chance that there will be an armed defense available to stop any attack. Third, if an individual is armed and alone, then if an attack occurs, there is the possibility of a defense. If the citizenry is disarmed, then there is no such possibility. Fourth, the fact is that I'm not calling for everyone to be armed, just for everyone to have the freedom to exercise their already endowed upon them by their Creator, inalienable RIGHT to be armed. That's even better, because then the criminals will always be guessing and wondering who is and who isn't. This is what reduces crime.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

But regardless of bias, did you bother reading their refutations?

Yes, as a matter of fact I did.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Do you have anything to say about the problems they spoke of with the study, or did you just assume that because they're in favor of gun control that they must be incorrect?

I used to not assume that, but given their track record of continued distortions and outright lies, even after being corrected numerous times, then it gets to be very hard to read the same regurgitated fascistic blather again and again.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

I read one (though I may not have posted it) from someone who claimed to be a gun owner and in favor of guns, but who thought that the study was flawed apart from it's social message. As fr whether HCI lies or not, I'm perfectly willing to believe that any organization is willing to lie for their cause.

There is a rather (in)famous gun-grabber in Boston who claims to also be a gun owner. The fact is that checking the rolls of the members at the club he claims to belong to does not show his name in the last decade as a member. Also, there is no proof that he does, in fact, own any firearms whatsoever. It is a media-play ploy, plain and simple. As for lobbying and using the facts. I do my best to educate using detailed research and statistics. I have done so for over a decade in this debate. I have time and again done so on these forums, to only have the sourses and cites ignored. I have tired of continuing to refute the continuous onslaught of lies, distortions and manipulations of the gun grabbers. In fact, the GOA (gun owners of america) and the NRA are considered to be at the top as two of the most honest and complete lobbying organizations in Washington! And I don't even like the NRA.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Valkenar:

Gun advocates have just as much reason to lie about their position as gun-control activists. That's why on all of these studies you have to look at what they say closely, and it doesn't sound like you did that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First, you don't have to lie when the truth is on your side. Second, I've been researching this for over a decade and your assertion that I haven't looked at this issue very closely is not only incorrect, but it is insulting. Fine, since you insist...

For example, The Australian site (University of New South Wales) is quite slick and serious. Aussie academics on sites such as this and in other writings have shown themselves to compound the most concentrated mix of Marxism, populism, and inverted elitism on the planet and, in fact, do feel quite elite about it. You can see this from the opening page. Where the argument basically boils down to "even if there is a correlation, it is not proof of causation, because I know in my heart that it is bad for the herd to be armed." One example, from the section that purports to deny that there was a decrease in crime in the areas where shall-issue was introduced:

<blockquote>As well as finding significant correlations with the carry law Lott found many other correlations. Some of these make sense, for example, the an increase in the percentage of the population that is black, male, and aged 10-19 is correlated with an increase in the property crime rate. Others, however do not, for example, an
increase of 1 percentage point in the percentage of the population that is black, female, and 40-49 is associated with a 74% decrease in rape, and a 59% increase in homicide. These two correlations (and many others) are spurious.</blockquote>

(NOTE: all grammatical errors are from the original)

Let's look at what's happening here: we start with the assertion that there was no decrease in crime rates, and suddenly we're talking about false correlation! Basically going from criticizing the data to criticizing how (other) data is used. Very slick and very tiresome to pin down! In fact, it's the tiresomeness of such "angels-on-a-pinhead" nattering that shows me that gun grabbers, Statists, and facists (but then I repeat myself) will never allow intellectual honesty and the truth of the facts to enter into the equation in the first place. For me the Tim Lamberts of the world can go back to Oz and take their knaves with them, and all concerns of crime and safety.

On the other hand, we have the polyticks people, who are more run-of-the-mill gun grabbers, with a page that is admittedly copied directly from HCI. A sample:

<blockquote>In the 29 states that have lax CCW laws (where law enforcement must issue CCW licenses to almost all applicants), the crime rate fell 2.1%, from 5397.0 to 5285.1 crimes per 100,000 population from 1996 to 1997. During the same time period, in the 21 states and the District of Columbia with strict carry laws or which don't allow the carrying of concealed weapons at all, the crime rate fell 4.4%, from 4810.5 to 4599.9 crimes per 100,000 population. The decline in the crime rate of strict licensing and no-carry states was 2.1 times that of states with lax CCW systems, indicating that there
are more effective ways to fight crime than to encourage more people to carry guns.</blockquote>

Let's think about that one for a nanosecond... In the fifteen years which Lott studied, HCI actually was able to find one year in which crime fell everywhere. It is interesting that the absolute crime rates reported here are lower for the Lands of the Blessed, like DC, where gun laws are stricter. That alone should make anyone with any knowledge of the subject very skeptical of their numbers. But people blindly believe these bogus statistical manipulations. The facts are addressed (as stated in a previous posting of the e-mail I recieved from John Lott) in Chapter 9 of the second edition (and up) of his book. To cut to the chase, HCI, as usual, "cooked the books". But even they were only able to do it for one year and through selective "editing" of the stats.

So... After fighting these blatent lies and cooking the stats for over a decade, you question whether I automatically disbelieve something put out by some facist anti-american gun-grabbers with an agenda of destroying everything this nation stands for? The fact is that since their inception under Josh Sugarmann, they have lied. The fact is that Josh Sugarmann (the founder) put out memos that were a "how to" for lying about the subject and using creative twistings of the facts to "confuse the public" into falling for their agenda of complete disarming of the American citizenry! They repeat their lies even when they have been corrected. (In one case in Boston, they were even corrected, in front of the Committee on Public Safety, by both FBI and BATF agents, yet they still spout the same lies... and the media that supports their Statist agenda still repeats those lies, without once checking the facts to see if they're true, even when TOLD and SHOWN they are false!) You don't think I've done my homework? That is insulting. You've stepped into the Panther's lair on this one...

Go Panther go!!! I love it when you talk like that.

Rich

Question: Do you think that people should have to get a license to drive cars? How about to fly commercial passenger planes? How about to practice medicine? These are all things that have the potential for catastrophic misuse, how are guns different?

Reply: Let me think about this for a nanosecond... No. No. No. No. Yep, that sums it up nicely.

Comment: While any rhetoric that spouts off about liberty, the threats of the statist invasion, and the rights of the people automatically sounds nice, the above thinking needs to be recognized as pretty far outside the norm here in America. The large majority of this nation, I'd wager, is glad a pilot on a flight they book has to meet some standard. I believe in the free market and in customers comparing products and choosing the best, yadda yadda, but let's be realistic.

#1 No one has time to do the kind of research required to be sure of the safety of a given pilot and plane and company and maintenance crew each time they buy a ticket. You'd have to multiply all this work by the number of significant decisions to make in terms of buying cars, choosing a physician, etc. The only way people could then make decent informed decisions is if we all worked as product safety investigators full time. Or, someone could do the work for us. Maybe you want a million consumer reports type organizations to spring up, but what you've basically done there isn't remove evaluations, but change who does them. That's just a call to make the FAA private. Fine, whatever, someone is still evaluating safety.

#2 I spose we could just evaluate the flights for safety and let all the really deadly ones keep flying--evaluated, unlicensed. Well, when we as consumers make choices about hotdogs, we try a brand we don't like, it tastes bad, we go Hebrew National next time, no problem. We try a plane we don't like, a 747 lands in downtown NY at 600 miles an hour killing 500 people. Now, consumption of unsavory (but, I'll admit, not worm and e. coli ridden) hotdogs is a risk I'm willing to make America take. But I'm not holding out for consumers to just extensively research all plane flights and sell zero tickets to the one with the alcoholic untrained nonlicensed pilot, fixed by the alcoholic unlicensed untrained mechanic, to prevent catastrophe. I think its pretty certain that if we let industry come up with its own standards, there're going to be more accidents that kill off not just unsavvy customers but MY friends and family when these planes rain from the air. Liberty rhetoric ain't worth a plane up your toosh, and mark my word, if the framers were here they'd want a qualified magician flying these metal birds, and the thought of one of their field hands getting behind the wheel at will would scare their knickers off.

Let's talk MD's and drugs next. Here's what happens when no requirements are made to sell drugs:

1) Ms Jones buys 6 grams gentamycin IV q4 hours for her cold, fries her kidneys and her hearing, renders this and other antibiotics useless for the rest of us by overuse, and pretty soon it's as if we're sawing off limbs in a civil war field tent because all the microbes are resistant to our antibiotics. Later, *I* die of a previously treatable infection.

2) Mr. Jones gets his Viagra no questions asked, but has chest pain and takes his nitrates, and ends up severely hypotensive at the hospital, where some ninny forgets to stop his metformin because of his renal failure and neglects to ask pre-thrombolysis about that hemorrhagic stroke 3 weeks ago and he has a fatal lactic acidosis and intracerebral hemorrhage.

3) We all dance at the funerals because liberty is maximized?

There's superficially appealing concepts out there, but there's also the real world. America can't add or subtract (see education thread) and it ain't ready to prescribe drugs without a license and the training behind it either.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ian:

Comment: While any rhetoric that spouts off about liberty, the threats of the statist invasion, and the rights of the people automatically sounds nice, the above thinking needs to be recognized as pretty far outside the norm here in America.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For people like you, it's "rhetoric" and it just "sounds nice". For people like me, it's a deeply held belief. As far as it being outside the norm of America, therein lies the decline in this once great nation.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

The large majority of this nation, I'd wager, is glad a pilot on a flight they book has to meet some standard.

Where did I say they shouldn't meet some standard? I simply said I didn't think they should be required to get a government license.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

I believe in the free market and in customers comparing products and choosing the best, yadda yadda, but let's be realistic.

For some reason, I don't really believe you do.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Or, someone could do the work for us.

That's one possibility.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Maybe you want a million consumer reports type organizations to spring up, but what you've basically done there isn't remove evaluations, but change who does them.

No, it wouldn't create a million consumer reports type organizations. And what is wrong with having independent evaluations?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

That's just a call to make the FAA private.

No, it's not.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Fine, whatever, someone is still evaluating safety.

That's one possibility.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Now, consumption of unsavory (but, I'll admit, not worm and e. coli ridden) hotdogs is a risk I'm willing to make America take.

Gee, thanks for your permission.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

But I'm not holding out for consumers to just extensively research all plane flights and sell zero tickets to the one with the alcoholic untrained nonlicensed pilot, fixed by the alcoholic unlicensed untrained mechanic, to prevent catastrophe.

Now that is an outrageous assertion and either a complete misunderstanding or a deliberate twisting.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

I think its pretty certain that if we let industry come up with its own standards, there're going to be more accidents that kill off not just unsavvy customers but MY friends and family when these planes rain from the air.

Completely unfounded accusation.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Liberty rhetoric ain't worth a plane up your toosh, and mark my word, if the framers were here they'd want a qualified magician flying these metal birds, and the thought of one of their field hands getting behind the wheel at will would scare their knickers off.

What was that about "rhetoric"? From what you've written, it appears obvious that you have no idea what the Framers would or wouldn't want or believe.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Let's talk MD's and drugs next. Here's what happens when no requirements are made to sell drugs:

1) Ms Jones buys 6 grams gentamycin IV q4 hours for her cold, fries her kidneys and her hearing, renders this and other antibiotics useless for the rest of us by overuse, and pretty soon it's as if we're sawing off limbs in a civil war field tent because all the microbes are resistant to our antibiotics. Later, *I* die of a previously treatable infection.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ROTFLMAO...

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

2) Mr. Jones gets his Viagra no questions asked, but has chest pain and takes his nitrates, and ends up severely hypotensive at the hospital, where some ninny forgets to stop his metformin because of his renal failure and neglects to ask pre-thrombolysis about that hemorrhagic stroke 3 weeks ago and he has a fatal lactic acidosis and intracerebral hemorrhage.

I didn't say anything that would cause these things to happen.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

3) We all dance at the funerals because liberty is maximized?

It depends on who the funeral is for.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

There's superficially appealing concepts out there, but there's also the real world.

Thank you for letting us know that you think Freedom, Liberty, Rights, and Responsibility are only "superficially appealing".

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

America can't add or subtract (see education thread) and it ain't ready to prescribe drugs without a license and the training behind it either.

Who said anything about a lack of training? Government has been in charge of the little PC indoctrination centers for a long time and johnny and jane still can't add or subtract. So why should we believe that some bureaucrat is capable of licensing the correct individuals? The entire government licensing scheme has nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with revenue generation and control. It is not needed. I walk into Dr. Ian's office, I don't care if he's licensed by the government. I want to see that he has the training, experience and knowledge to help me out. I walk into the pharmacist, I don't care about a government license. I want to know that (s)he has the training, experience and knowledge to help me make informed decisions about my medicinal needs. And there shouldn't be any "war on drugs" and there shouldn't be any need for a prescription. I should be able to discuss it with my doctor and/or pharmacist and make my own medical decisions. If I get all that advice (which one would be a fool to not get) and then I still chose to do something that I've been told is a stupid thing to do with the medicines, therein lies the part of the equation we call "personal responsibility".

Since I don't want to quote the entirety of your scenario, nor do I want to step on your toes by just quoting the relevant parts of it, I won't. But in answer to your question about what part you rigged, it's the part about how your goal was just go in and kill her. I understand and applaud your effort to make it reasonable by taking your time and going into various rooms. You still ignored the question of whether incidents where the victim is murdered outright make up a statistically significant portion of the the crimes.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Interesting... When the Statist grabbers do it, there isn't a problem, but I use it as a real world example of how a "non-violent" crime can turn violent in a hurry (in response to your assertion that "My understanding is that cases where someone just wants to kill someone else are pretty rare") and you call me on the carpet for using an emotional argument! While I can see your point, the fact is that I should be allowed to use any legitimate debating technique that those who are willing to stomp on my Rights and blow their noses on the Constitution are allowed to use<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You did more than use it as an example. You explained the whole situation beyond the fact that it went bad, and you described it in graphic terms. I never said anything about it being alright for gun control advocates to use emotional appeals while it is not alright for pro ownership activists to do so. My only point is that it is hyppocritical of you to complain that other people make emotional appeals, and then to do so yourself. But really, I don't care if you want to make emotional appeals. Debate any way you like.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>That is a flawed conclusion, a flawed premise, and a flawed argument. If everyone is allowed a gun, police and citizens alike, then the benefits multiply. First the criminals don't know who is armed or when, meaning that (at least according to research done with violent prisoners) 60% of them will avoid doing the crime in the first place! Second, private citizens are far more numerous than police (as it shoud be) and having those private citizens potentially being armed means a greater chance that there will be an armed defense available to stop any attack. Third, if an individual is armed and alone, then if an attack occurs, there is the possibility of a defense. If the citizenry is disarmed, then there is no such possibility. Fourth, the fact is that I'm not calling for everyone to be armed, just for everyone to have the freedom to exercise their already endowed upon them by their Creator, inalienable RIGHT to be armed. That's even better, because then the criminals will always be guessing and wondering who is and who isn't. This is what reduces crime.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Interesting argument, I'd be happy to debate it. However the point I was discussing was about intervention in crimes, not prevention of crimes. The only relevant part is whether people defend themselves. My argument is that arming them won't help them defend eachother, since your scenario purports to prove this is impossible. If you'd like to shift the discussion to the individual's defense, and not The People's defense of eachother, that's fine.

As for the "infamous gun-grabber" in Boston, I'm sorry to hear about that. I agree that people shouldn't lie to make their point... on any side of an argument.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
First, you don't have to lie when the truth is on your side. Second, I've been researching this for over a decade and your assertion that I haven't looked at this issue very closely is not only incorrect, but it is insulting. Fine, since you insist...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, you don't have to lie. But people do lie anyway. And it's just too bad that the Truth won't step out and just declare which side it's on. But since we have to content ourselves with looking at evidence, we'll have to consider the possiblity that either, or both sides are lying.

I never intended to insult you, or to say that you haven't studied this issue very closely. You don't like when people twist your words, please don't twist mine. The only question I had was whether you had taken a close look at the specific links I showed you, those were the "these studies" I was referring to, not all the studies in the world.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
For example, The Australian site (University of New South Wales) is quite slick and serious. Aussie academics on sites such as this and in other writings have shown themselves to compound the most concentrated mix of Marxism, populism, and inverted elitism on the planet and, in fact, do feel quite elite about it. You can see this from the opening page. Where the argument basically boils down to "even if there is a correlation, it is not proof of causation, because I know in my heart that it is bad for the herd to be armed."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It is a fact of statistics that correlation is not proof of causation. Maybe it's true that they do feel in their hearts that "it is bad for the herd to be armed" that feeling doesn't change the fact that correlation is not causation.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>One example, from the section that purports to deny that there was a decrease in crime in the areas where shall-issue was introduced:

As well as finding significant correlations with the carry law Lott found many other correlations. Some of these make sense, for example, the an increase in the percentage of the population that is black, male, and aged 10-19 is correlated with an increase in the property crime rate. Others, however do not, for example, an
increase of 1 percentage point in the percentage of the population that is black, female, and 40-49 is associated with a 74% decrease in rape, and a 59% increase in homicide. These two correlations (and many others) are spurious.

(NOTE: all grammatical errors are from the original)

Let's look at what's happening here: we start with the assertion that there was no decrease in crime rates, and suddenly we're talking about false correlation! Basically going from criticizing the data to criticizing how (other) data is used. Very slick and very tiresome to pin down! In fact, it's the tiresomeness of such "angels-on-a-pinhead" nattering that shows me that gun grabbers, Statists, and facists (but then I repeat myself) will never allow intellectual honesty and the truth of the facts to enter into the equation in the first place. For me the Tim Lamberts of the world can go back to Oz and take their knaves with them, and all concerns of crime and safety.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

(NOTE: all grammatical errors are from the original)

Perhaps that's the point they were making overall, but just in the part that you quoted they didn't assert anything about crime rates failig to drop. You're right that they do call those correlations spurious. Until I get a chance to read Lott's book myself I won't be able to personally confirm whether his correlations are false.

Is there a point you're trying to make in the part where you talk about Statists, fascists and Tim Lamberts, other than maybe that you really distrust and hate gun control advocates?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Let's think about that one for a nanosecond... In the fifteen years which Lott studied, HCI actually was able to find one year in which crime fell everywhere. It is interesting that the absolute crime rates reported here are lower for the Lands of the Blessed, like DC, where gun laws are stricter. That alone should make anyone with any knowledge of the subject very skeptical of their numbers. But people blindly believe these bogus statistical manipulations. The facts are addressed (as stated in a previous posting of the e-mail I recieved from John Lott) in Chapter 9 of the second edition (and up) of his book. To cut to the chase, HCI, as usual, "cooked the books". But even they were only able to do it for one year and through selective "editing" of the stats
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To fully address this I'll need to look at both Lott's book and the original source of his statistics (no reason to think he's any different from anyone else, other than that he reportedly wasn't pro-gun until after his study... for all I know he could be like that guy in Boston you mentioned).

What makes it interesting that the absolute crime rates are lower for the states with stricter laws? That fact alone indicates more that the laws work than that the data is invalid.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
So... After fighting these blatent lies and cooking the stats for over a decade, you question whether I automatically disbelieve something put out by some facist anti-american gun-grabbers with an agenda of destroying everything this nation stands for? ... You don't think I've done my homework? That is insulting. You've stepped into the Panther's lair on this one... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorry for omitting the middle of this paragraph where you talk about the HCI lygin, but I wan to respond to this part first.

Let me say that I am well aware that you have done your homework. I think you have researched the issue carefully. What I wasn't sure of is whether you've closed your mind completely to the possibility that the sources in favor of gun ownership have lied as much as those opposing it. That's why I questioned whether you automatically disbelieved the articles I posted links to. Given that you later said "I used to not assume that, but given their track record of continued distortions and outright lies, even after being corrected numerous times, then it gets to be very hard to read the same regurgitated fascistic blather again and again. " I don't think this was an unreasonable question. Again, I'm sorry that you were insulted by my question.

Do you really think that absolutely everything that America stands for is represented by the gun control debate? I believe that you did look at it, but if you hadn't, then you wouldn't have known that it was written by a "facist anti-american gun-grabber."

As for stepping into your lair I'm not sure what you mean by that.

In terms of insults, I have no interest in insulting you. I could be wrong, but it does appear that you feel free to insult me however. Every single time I post anything about gun control you either imply or directly state that I am one or more of the following: Fascist, statist, anti-ameican, against everything america stands for, a liar, a deceitful manipulator of data, against victims and probably many other things that I can't remember right now. I don't feel insulted by these things, but I do think it's worth noting that you raise complaints about me insulting you, but feel free to insult me all you like. Again, if that's the kind of forum you want, then by all means go ahead. I'm decidedly uninterestd insulting you, but if you'd like to continue insulting me that's fine... just thought you might want to know how it comes across.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panther:
Where did I say they shouldn't meet some standard? I simply said I didn't think they should be required to get a government license<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They should meet a standard, but if they aren't forced to, they won't. Companies do whatever gets them the most money, period. Even with restrictins, there are countless of examples of companies cutting costs and screwing people over because it benefits them to do so.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>quote:
---------------------------------------------I think its pretty certain that if we let industry come up with its own standards, there're going to be more accidents that kill off not just unsavvy customers but MY friends and family when these planes rain from the air.
---------------------------------------------

Completely unfounded accusation.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think this accusation is unfounded. Some regulations are put in before the companies have a chance to mess things up, but lots of them are established in response to corporations harming people.

"If I get all that advice (which one would be a fool to not get) and then I still chose to do something that I've been told is a stupid thing to do with the medicines, therein lies the part of the equation we call "personal responsibility".

This is the only thing I'm quoting. I've lost interest in the line-by-line nitpick; it adds nothing. Suffice to say that my argument is, in summary, if public services from airplane flying to water purification and medication prescribing aren't regulated, they aren't done well and we suffer as a nation. None of the word twisting about how I don't believe in individual rights is relevant.

So here's a few examples of what that equation of Panther's really entails.

#1 In spain, people make their own antibiotic decisions. They're nonprescription in the pharmacies, and people can get a pharmacist's help, or not. This is Panther's dream. The pay off is one of the WORLD'S HIGHEST rates of antibiotic resistance. Panther may be ROTFL"H"AO about such issues, but after seeing people die from infections caused by resistant bugs, I'm not. They're SCARY, but they're avoidable. At UVA, the ID team used to be able to veto any unwise antibiotic regimen used by the surgeons on the burn floor (where complicated ID issues meet MD's trained to cut, not fight infections). After they lost this ability, the resistance rates shot up. They do, however, at most hospitals, have veto power over the more powerful antibiotics. NOT EVEN PHYSICIANS CAN BE TRUSTED, IN VIEW OF THE EXPERTS **WHO WOULD KNOW** TO USE THESE ANTIBIOTICS without supervision. Panther would give this right to my little brother, and the result would be a return to the preantibiotic era. BAD IDEA. People would DIE, and KILL others, for the "liberty" inherent in making decisions they're not qualified to make.

#2: Panther opposes requiring safety device use. Motorcyclists don't want to wear helmets, parents don't want to wear seatbelts or have their kids do it either. Swell. So, after they come to the hospital post accident costs are higher, rehab is more expensive, many people suffer more. You have the benefit in the USA of hospitals who will, regardless of ability to pay, fix your smashed skull and get you hooked up with post accident care. I wouldn't want this to change because I can't (maybe Panther could) tell the family of the injured person (or faultless child) that they're going to be allowed to die because we don't feel like paying out for someone's error. So we're stuck: do we just let these folks die? Put that policy in effect and see if it makes America any more "great." The alternatives: rob taxpayers (tyranny!) to pay for this liberty associated cost, or fine non-wearers of this safety gear (more tyranny!).

#3 Everyone uses the drugs they feel like using, without regulation. Without regulation, we've got millions of teenagers who aren't yet aware of the gravity of their decisions becoming addicted to drugs that ruin their lives and impose a significant toll on the rest of us. Again, tossing them in the trash has ethical as well as monetary costs, but the rehab comes from everyone else's pockets. So while I would legalize all drugs to stop the destructive war on drugs, I'd also make sure that the manner in which they were given out meant substantial education, taxes to pay for rehab, and the like. Maybe this would mean private distribution companies and whatnot, but, there'd have to be the nation's people directing this distribution through some kind of agency, and that to me equates with government. Because *I* don't want to pay for the consequences of other people's bad decisions about drug use, and frankly, I don't like seeing them in clinic after drugs have destroyed *their* lives either. "I told you so, you're responsible for your own predicament," is true, but not helpful at this late stage.

Lastly, I don't think anyone has done extensive research on what the framers would thing about Boeing 747's. Though, I haven't read their works on it. My ignorant commentary was more humor based and intended to point out that these licensing issues have a greater impact on the public at large than they did back in the day where improper engineering lead to a wagon wheel falling off instead of an aviation disaster.

[This message has been edited by Ian (edited August 25, 2001).]

Yesterday, I wrote this nice long reply. I had a late meeting and when I got back to finish it and post it, there was a power glitch and poof... gone. I'll have to recreate... I ask for your patience... or in Ian's case, patients.

http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/libe68-20000331-07.html

Not my response, but appropriate...

While I, personally, may find it disheartening that someone would consider a strong belief in individual freedoms, liberties, rights and personal responsibility, nothing more than “rhetoric” that “sounds nice”, but which is “far outside the norm”, it is none-the-less enlightening and insightful.

Amid the complaints of using specific political terms to identify such mindsets, it is important to step back and realize that such politically identifying tags are never the basic criteria of this debate. This discussion and debate is easily pared down to a fundamental difference. The two sides divide politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists claiming to act from the highest motives for the greatest good for the greatest number. All the while characterizing the latter as surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism.

For the record, I believe that the jealous defense of individual rights (for themselves and for others) by individuals and groups of individuals is the only political action that can truly lead to the greatest good for the greatest number. In fact, the sooner we (as a society) embrace individual rights as our highest ideal, the sooner we will have a utopian society. Everyone will be at least 8-10 times richer. There will be NO unemployment. Costs will plummet. Production will explode. Innovation will be beyond our wildest imagination. All with extreme environmental responsibility. Everyone's basic needs will be payable out of pocket change. And crime? Crime will be reduced to almost zero.

The truth is that when the government's boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right boot is of no consequence. Regardless, the plea is of “necessity” and “good intentions” for every infringement desired on our freedom and for every assumption of greater power being sought. Such is and always has been the argument of tyrants. Through propaganda or force, it becomes the creed of slaves.

Daniel Webster warned us that, “The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”

Few people truly desire freedom and liberty... and fewer still are willing to fight for it. Most people are content in thinking they have a just master. It remains that one of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the world's evils will be cured by legislative fiat. The fact is that this urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. These insidious encroachments come from well-meaning people who misunderstand the basic tenet that we all possess a set of priceless, irreducible, and inalienable rights which are not things that some person or government has given us but rather what no person or government can take away from us.

A person isn't free unless they are free to make the wrong decisions and it is not the responsibility of government or the legal system to protect citizens from themselves. As has happened in the past, I very nearly got drawn into the call for sources, cites, statistics, proof! Justifying any right by statistics, on the basis of beneficial behavior by the many, is as dangerous as denying that right on the basis of criminal behavior or a lack of personal responsibility by the few. One does not have to and indeed does not justify fundamental rights.

America is a great country. But it is not magically protected from tyranny simply because it is America. It is great only for as long as the Constitution and the freedoms recognized in that document are honored and defended. I cannot accept so-called “necessity”, “good intentions” or "reasonable compromises" that would limit my rights, because I firmly believe that there is no limit to the compromises that I will be asked to accept in the future. History has shown conclusively that one “reasonable”, “needed” or “for the greater good” infringement of our rights quickly leads to the next one. Each time these anti-freedom advocates push their restrictive proposals forward in the halls of government, we are assured, even promised, that if we will only go along "this time," we won't be asked to give up any more of our rights. Each time, that promise is abrogated almost immediately. This is simple historical fact. If I "compromise" today, tomorrow I will be asked to "compromise" again, and my rights will, as they already have been, be slowly whittled down to nothing.

I can't see it when someone says that no one wants to take away my rights, because it is clear that some people do. Yes, they are concerned about certain ills in our society, and they may even believe that their latest restriction will make the situation better, but they also have an irrational fear of other people exercising their freedoms, liberties, and rights, even people who would never harm them in any way. It bothers them deeply, and control is their eventual goal. Drugs are a perfect example -- illegal, but easily available. I can't buy cocaine at the corner drugstore, but I can send a kid down to downtown Boston, Worcester, or Washington DC to get me a big bag of crack, anytime, day or night. The precursors to illegal drugs are often controlled substances themselves, so now we have new classes of mind-altering substances that are made from things like baking soda and No-Doze. Substances that were formerly legal are now illegal, even though the ill effects claimed were few throughout society. More restrictions on everyone, even those who are responsible.

Pleas of necessity for more restrictions on our rights ignore the fact that such restrictions only affect law-abiding people. Yet they also harm law-abiding people in numerous ways. Drugs that are easily purchased, without ill effects to the citizenry, over-the-counter in other countries, not only have a much higher price here, but if not obtained through the proper authorities, can, will, and have netted citizens long-term vacations at “club Fed”. Disgusting. And there is absolutely no proof that allowing people to purchase antibiotics over-the-counter will mean that the population at large will abuse them through self medication. In fact, the only thing that can be proven from the extreme example given is that DOCTORS have overprescribed them. Those who we are supposed to trust about such matters... and those who very often use their status as a badge that supposedly "automagically" makes them expert enough to condone the destruction of even more of our freedoms, liberties, and rights!

Prohibition was another prime example. People wanted booze and the law banning it was unpopular, so of course, the booze flowed copiously. Our own Kennedy family has their patriarch to thank for their wealth: their empire was built on bootleg whiskey. History does not even dispute that fact. And yet today's equivalent (marijuana) is equally vilified and flows just as copiously.

Yes, there are certain risks in freedom, but there are also risks in losing it. Thomas Jefferson once stated that he “would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.” Regardless of altruistic claims to the contrary, hospitals have, will, can and do turn people away routinely. The examples are just as numerous and even more heart wrenching than the claims of my cold-heartedness. (In fact, some of those examples could be given from first-hand knowledge.)

As elucidated in the Declaration of Independence, we each have natural, inalienable rights (albeit occasionally limited on a right-by-right basis to ensure that others may exercise their natural rights - for example, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, breeding Ebola-infected pigeons, or using suitcase nukes as piñatas). While our Constitutional Republic must have its organizations and controls, its vital life-blood is individual liberty. It is not the business of government to preserve the fool from the consequences of his own folly. The purpose of government controls should extend no further than is necessary to secure the liberties and freedoms by protecting the equal rights of each individual from aggression on the part of others, and the moment governmental prohibitions or restrictions extend beyond this line they are in danger of defeating the very ideals they were created to serve.

Certainly it is true that if you treat an infection with antibiotics but don't get one hundred percent of the germs, the ones that survive will be the most dangerous. The same can be said for those who would plead for power to regulate others. Those omnipotent moral busybodies who exercise their tyranny for the good of their victims are the most oppressive. They are never satiated and will torment us for our own good to no end, all the while doing so with the approval of their own conscience. They will always use the machinery of law and government to the farthest extent that public opinion, their own distortions, and media propaganda will permit. And as long as that is true, just as with the surviving germs, we're really screwed.

“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” - GOETHE

Individual rights (and make no mistake about it, there are no other kinds of rights) are not subject to a public vote. The majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority and the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from such oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).

Yet there are still those that believe in this “mobocracy”... this... “majoritarianism"... as L. Neil Smith calls it and he explains it best:

<blockquote>Nothing subject to majoritarianism ever gets better. "If voting could change things," goes an old anarchist saying, "it would be illegal". Set aside the fact that a voting majority always means a minority of the people. Set aside the fact that elections amount to no more than choosing between the scum that floats to the top of the barrel and the dregs that settle to the bottom. Even at majoritarianism's self-advertised best, there are always losers. Sometimes they constitute as many as just one less than half.</blockquote>

For those of us who believe that freedom, liberty, and rights are more than "rhetoric" that simply "sounds nice", it is hard to see even one percent as insignificant. Especially since that one percent always seems to include us. (Back to L. Neil Smith)

<blockquote>Majoritarianism rests on two false assumptions and a cynical threat. It first assumes that two people are smarter than one person. Strength is additive, two people are stronger than one person, and this has been the primary source of tragedy throughout human history. Even stupidity seems additive somehow, possibly it's a phenomenon of interference which would explain a lot of that history. People, in fact, do possess certain attributes which are additive, and many which are not at all. Decency, kindness, integrity are all individual characteristics. Time is additive only in a limited sense: two women can't have a baby in four and a half months. If you've ever observed a committee, you know that the highest intelligence in a room isn't the sum of its occupants' IQs, but simply that of the brightest individual -- divided by the number of other people in the room. Just as gravity arises from the nature of space and mass, rights arise from our inherent nature as individual human beings. Rights aren't additive. Systems which assume that they are labor under the false and dangerous assumption that two people have more rights than one.

Some claim that majoritarianism, despite its faults, is an alternative preferable to physical conflict. They're wrong: majoritarianism is physical conflict. Elections (editorial comment: this also includes referendums and votes within the legislature for new laws) are a process of counting fists, rather than noses, and saying, "We outnumber you -- we could beat you up and kill you -- you might as well give in and save everyone a lot of trouble." Majoritarianism, to put it straightforwardly, possesses the full measure of nobility manifested by any other form of extortion. Based in fallacy and threat, majoritarianism is troubled by certain characteristic malfunctions.

Human rights are an aspect of natural law, a consequence of the way the universe works, as solid and as real as photons or the concept of pi. The idea of self-ownership is the equivalent of Pythagoras' theorem, of evolution by natural selection, of general relativity, and of quantum theory. Before humankind discovered any of these, it suffered, to varying degrees, in misery and ignorance. Where they are suppressed or disregarded today, people still suffer. When Pythagoras, Darwin, Einstein, Bohr, and Rand each made his or her uniquely valuable discovery about the way the universe works, mankind took another step away from savagery, toward lasting safety, comfort, pleasure, and convenience.</blockquote>

I've used this analogy before and even though that was in the context of a specific right, it fits into this discussion as it applies equally to all of our rights.

The last thing a potential rape victim should do is willingly allow herself to be handcuffed by her kidnapper. Once captured, rape and death are probable. Escape is unlikely. Once the handcuffs are on, escape becomes impossible and rape or worse becomes a certainty.

Asking the People to buy into sophisticated arguments to give up any of our rights is like the kidnapper/rapist plying his prey with liquor, sweet talk and promises of a real good time - if only she'll put on the handcuffs.

Well, expecting us to willingly put on your handcuffs (give up our rights... any of our rights) is not just stupid, it is traitorous, it is national suicide, and it is a hideous, unthinkable betrayal of not only our freedoms, liberties, rights and heritage, it's a betrayal of our children.

Throughout history, oppression has been fought by those who would rather get hurt than give in.

<blockquote>"Still if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."
-- Winston Churchill.</blockquote>

Fundamentally it comes down to the premise that people who have to be persuaded to be free don't deserve to be.

Oh, and as far as researching the Framer's intents:

<blockquote>"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invent against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p322.</blockquote>

The above is probably a very lucid and insightful treatise on the classical and modern roots of libertarianism, but I'm at work and don't have time to read it thoroughly.

I did pick up a couple things:
Re: hospitals turning away patients:
1986's COBRA contained the EMTALA law (Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act). The text of the law states that no hospital with an emergency dept. that accepts medicare (nearly all hospitals) may turn away a patient with any "Emergency Medical Condition" (or anyone in active labor). Subsequent case law has defined the emergency medical condition as more or less any condition that prevents an individual from leading their normal life. Headaches, strep throat, as well as misplaced limbs all fall into this category. A hospital doesn't have to transfer the patient up to its transplant unit, for example, but has to treat the patient in the Emergency dept until the emergency medical condition is relived or subsides. Because this legislation was created mainly to prevent patient-dumping, the hospital may not discharge a patient until the condition is alleviated or until a suitable facility agrees to accept transfer. Hospitals are very afraid of EMTALA violations. So no, they really don't turn needy people away (anymore).

Ian: Comments? Corrections?


General questions:
1) Is is possible that the maximization of aggregate individual liberty may require the restriction of some types of liberty?
2) If it were the case that we could all be happier with marginally less liberty, could such a condition ever be morally acceptable?
3) Out of curiosity, to the Libertarians on the board: Where do you find the best philosophical roots for your beliefs? I find that Nozick did better than most as a defense against Rawls' egalitarianism. Also, Wolf (maybe unknowingly) put forth a great quasi-libertarian critique of government in _In Defense of Anarchism_, where he argued that the only legitimate form of government would be a "Unanimous Direct Democracy", and that anything else is pure tyranny.

Does anyone read the mag /Liberty/ ? I find that to be a hodgepodge of the most ill-founded arguments Libertarianism has to offer.

Have a great weekend.

Lee, sorry, not much up on the laws; mostly worrying about trying to learn how to make people well, and our concern (residents) when people come into the ER is getting them better, other considerations from cost and law are involved but frequently secondary.

Re: my most specific example and where an experiment has helpfully been done: yes, letting everyone get antibiotics on their own leads directly to increased resistance. Panther can't turn this around and blame MD's for being authoritarians who claim to be the solution but really are the problem. Most of those who hand the things out so quickly do so because parents/ patients demand them for conditions not requiring them, OR they fear legal repercussions for not treating up the wazooo OR they don't know better. Or because it's easier. Those customers if set free to buy their own would go hog wild. I've seen them come in with diarrhea, having taken a day of Cipro, one of Bactrim, one of Amoxicillin, having expected a cure in a day with each (hoarded from prescriptions they swapped around for or didn't finish). The docs who fear the small likelihood of adverse event would be dwarfed by the patients who feared such, I know cuz I've talked to both. Not knowing better, well, that's more patient than MD, though we're far from perfect. "Easier" would apply to anyone who thought they could trim an hour off their symptoms or anyone who was selling the stuff. I've certainly seem THAT effect flavor what the patients come in asking for. It's all the latest ads, where drug companies have convinced patients that Celebrex works better than ibuprofen because it's in their interest as capitalists. Those trained in pharmacology make enough mistakes without the help of patients trained by drug companies worried about patents running out.

If you snort coke until you die, you cost society through the crimes that may result, your medical care, your violence. It's all indirect; many people snort without causing trouble. Fine.

Misuse antibiotics and WE ALL WILL SUFFER. It's gotta be prevented.

Panther and I are in complete agreement.

Yes, I just said that.

He says we can't have nukes as pinatas, the reason being that the common good outweighs the individual interest, that we all have rights not to be nuked by neighbors that outweigh their interest in having nukes. That's his interpretation of the Constitution, even though it says something like the right to bear arms **shall not be infringed**. No qualifications made. Yet still he makes them, for the common good.

Arms, nukes and unwanted nuclear explosions.

Substitute drugs, antibiotics and unwanted drug resistance.

Regulation: here it's a matter of degree, not kind. The world is gray, not black and white, a place where a continuum of approaches to balancing personal vs general good exists, not an essay about libertarians vs jack-booted thugs. The real issue is whether these regulations come from the people in their own interest or a dictator.