Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, July 27, 2014

A federal judge on Saturday overturned Washington D.C.'s ban on carrying handguns outside the home, saying it was unconstitutional. "There is no longer any basis on which this Court can conclude that the District of Columbia's total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home is constitutional under any level of scrutiny," Judge Frederick Scullin said in an opinion.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

mysterytoy

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Oh Baby!

#1 | Posted by mysterytoy at 2014-07-26 08:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

I've posted many times: I believe people should be allowed (outside of obvious places like airliners, bars, schools) to carry a one-shot .22 derringer.
You can't raise hell with such....but hell won't be raised if everyone around has one shot.

#2 | Posted by Diablo at 2014-07-26 10:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

The opinion. ia700408.us.archive.org

#3 | Posted by et_al at 2014-07-27 03:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

Unconstitutional? So? That's W.H.M.O.

Oh well...NRA's fault somehow..

#4 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2014-07-27 04:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

In light of Heller, McDonald, and their progeny, there is no longer any basis on which this Court can conclude that the District of Columbia's total ban on the public carrying of ready-o-use handguns outside the home is constitutional under any level of scrutiny. Therefore, the Court finds that the District of Columbia's complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public is unconstitutional.

#5 | Posted by et_al at 2014-07-27 04:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

The judge, unfortunately, is correct. Carry weapons cannot be put on trial. It's the constitution itself that needs to be put on trial.

#6 | Posted by CrisisStills at 2014-07-27 09:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

"The judge, unfortunately, is correct. Carry weapons cannot be put on trial. It's the constitution itself that needs to be put on trial."

That's exactly right. If society feels that a particular law is no longer applicable, there are mechanisms in place to change it.

#7 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-07-27 10:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

In a way, all this may turn out for the best. Until we as a society have it absolutely shoved in our face that as currently construed the 2nd Amendment allows handguns under pretty much any circumstances, no change will occur. Only when we have no choice but to recognize that the problem is with 2nd Amendment can we go about addressing the actual problem. Until then, the American slaughter of inocents will continue.

#8 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-07-27 04:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

Lets all remember how the last official government gun confiscation went:
Gun grabbers delight

#9 | Posted by aescal at 2014-07-27 04:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

Lets all remember how the last official government gun confiscation went:
Gun grabbers delight

Posted by aescal at 2014-07-27 04:55

You forget during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina

en.wikipedia.org

#10 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-27 04:59 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"Until then, the American slaughter of inocents will continue."

It'll go on regardless. As long as someone wants to commit a mass killing, he/they'll find a way. Or, maybe you think we should ban gasoline, fertilizer, propane, castor beans, or whatever. The problem is not with the instrument(s) of killiing it's with the person(s).

#11 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-07-27 05:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

It should be a local option. The anthills that we call cities are a lot different from the real America. Wyatt Earp had enough sense to make them check their guns when coming to town.

I don't worry at all about the country guy who has a shotgun or rifle in the rack in the back window of his pickup. I do worry about the city slicker who has a Beretta in his glove compartment or puts one in his waistband before going to the bar.

Country folk have usually killed something with a gun, probably a game animal or varmint, while city folk have only seen it on Roadrunner cartoons or cheered over live coverage of some war. If you can't kill a mammal and prepare it for consumption you should not be allowed to use firearms. Make that part of the license test and make unlicensed carry worth 30 years on the rock pile. The Supreme Court has not invalidated the requirement for competence and safety tests. Automobiles can be deadly so we require tests and insurance. Why not the same for firearms.

Country folk will save up for a fine rifle, over and under or side by side or pump shotgun. City folk are stupidly buying junk that makes them look like Rambo but is nevertheless deadly in the hands of the delusional. They should probably not be allowed firearms but also knives and forks.

#12 | Posted by TenMile at 2014-07-27 06:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why would carrying a hand gun outside the home in podunk DC be illegal but not in podunk A? Either the right to carry is legal and Constitutional in the USA or it isn't.

#13 | Posted by Robson at 2014-07-27 07:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

I guess you have a problem with states rights and democracy. Yes, it might take a constitutional amendment to get by the current court. I wonder if the Supreme Court will recognize an absolute right to carry into their premises.

With all of North America at their back door the founding fathers never thought that people would be stupid enough to pile themselves into the anthills that we now call cities. Experiments with rats reveal that the more crowded they become, the more violent they become.

#14 | Posted by TenMile at 2014-07-27 08:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

#14 The political elites always push the minions and people into crowed urban areas because they become culturally and politically pliable instead of independent and self sufficient. Those who reside in urban rat infested culture are different from those in more rural areas who know and trust their neighbors..

#15 | Posted by Robson at 2014-07-27 09:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

#9 The US Govt of 2014 is far differ than that of the 19th century. The US Govt of 2014 is a toadee of lobbyists of another sovereign nation for starters, instead of representing US citizens that put the country first.

#16 | Posted by Robson at 2014-07-27 09:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's way past time to repeal the 2nd Amendment. There's no militia left to be well-regulated. The responsibility for the security of the free state has been delegated to the armed forces.

#17 | Posted by DCTexan at 2014-07-27 10:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

"It's way past time to repeal the 2nd Amendment."

I think it is highly unlikely that there will ever be another Constitutional amendment ratified.

#18 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-07-27 11:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

I think it is highly unlikely that there will ever be another Constitutional amendment ratified.

Posted by REDIAL at 2014-07-27 11:32 PM | Reply

Hopefully a Constitutional Amendment declaring Thou shan't have wives of former President run for President herself. Call it the sanity amendment.

#19 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-27 11:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

#17 | Posted by DCTexan
"It's way past time to repeal the 2nd Amendment."

Repeal, no. Rewrite, clarify, maybe.

#20 | Posted by TheTom at 2014-07-28 03:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

That's not going to happen either.

#21 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-07-28 07:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

It's way past time to repeal the 2nd Amendment. There's no militia left to be well-regulated. The responsibility for the security of the free state has been delegated to the armed forces.

#17 | Posted by DCTexan at 2014-07-27 10:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

You are free to leave anytime you like. Ask the jews in pre-WWII Germany if they needed to provide their own "security". Typical left wing idiot who doesn't understand the 2nd amendment.

#22 | Posted by e_pluribus_unum at 2014-07-28 02:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's way past time to repeal the 2nd Amendment. There's no militia left to be well-regulated. The responsibility for the security of the free state has been delegated to the armed forces.

#17 | Posted by DCTexan at 2014-07-27 10:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

Your States National Guard is your states well regulated militia.

#23 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-28 02:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

I think you guys are forgetting that it's not the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, it is the right of the "people". Presumably the same "people" referenced directly in the 1st amendment, 4th amendment, ninth amendment, or any otheramendment that directly addresses the "people."

If the second amendment doesn't apply to those people, why would any of the others. Maybe these amendments only apply to the "people" who are also part of the "well regulated militia?"

#24 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-07-28 02:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

"You are free to leave anytime you like. Ask the jews in pre-WWII Germany if they needed to provide their own "security". Typical left wing idiot who doesn't understand the 2nd amendment."

Ask yourself if a handgun will stop today's US Army from killing you if that's what they're tasked to do. Typical right-wing idiot who doesn't understand the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect him from the government and was never designed to deter it from doing so.

#25 | Posted by DCTexan at 2014-07-28 06:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Ask yourself if a handgun will stop today's US Army from killing you if that's what they're tasked to do."

Small arms seemed to have worked OK for the Taliban, ISIS, and other groups that lack heavy ordnance.

It also worked well for southern blacks who were forced to defend themselves against local government agencies who were aligned with the Klan or similar organizations. Groups for whom possession of a high power rifle would mean close to parity.

Make sense?

#26 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-07-28 06:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

If the second amendment doesn't apply to those people, why would any of the others. Maybe these amendments only apply to the "people" who are also part of the "well regulated militia?"
#24 | Posted by madbomber

As it turns out, right-wingers often trot a closely related argument -- that rights are only guaranteed to "citizens."

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-28 06:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Typical right-wing idiot who doesn't understand the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect him from the government and was never designed to deter it from doing so."

Are you ------- serious? That's exactly what the second amendment was created for.

#28 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-07-28 06:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

It also worked well for southern blacks who were forced to defend themselves against local government agencies who were aligned with the Klan or similar organizations.

It did? "The Tuskegee Institute has recorded 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites being lynched between 1882 and 1968 with the annual peak occurring in the late 1800s" en.wikipedia.org

I guess you're suggesting those numbers would have been much higher otherwise?

The wikipedia article goes on, "African Americans mounted resistance to lynchings in numerous ways." Use of small arms for self defense is not listed.

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-28 06:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

"As it turns out, right-wingers often trot a closely related argument -- that rights are only guaranteed to "citizens."

And they would be correct. The US constitution does not apply to citizens in other countries.

#30 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-07-28 06:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Your States National Guard is your states well regulated militia."

The reason for the 2nd Amendment was to ensure citizens showed ready to fight by bringing their own guns with them when reporting for duty. George Washington even implemented a plan to buy people's muskets from them when they left the Continental Army so it would have an ample supply of weapons.

The 2nd Amendment has outlived its usefulness.

#31 | Posted by DCTexan at 2014-07-28 06:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Are you ------- serious? That's exactly what the second amendment was created for."

That's popular right-wing mythology.

#32 | Posted by DCTexan at 2014-07-28 06:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Again from wikipedia, "Although some states took action against the Klan, the South needed federal help to deal with the escalating violence." en.wikipedia.org

A strong central government is the only way to protect human rights.

#33 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-28 07:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

The US constitution does not apply to citizens in other countries.
#30 | Posted by madbomber

The US Constitution does apply to non-citizens in the US. Not just Americans. Though I suspect you were just being deliberately obtuse...

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-28 07:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Are you ------- serious? That's exactly what the second amendment was created for.
#28 | Posted by madbomber

Well, it keeps the government from taking your guns.
But your guns don't protect you from the government.
Things like Due Process and Habeas Corpus are what protect you from government.

If you try to fight back against the government using your guns, you will die, and quite possibly take your family with you, like in Waco.

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-28 07:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Small arms seemed to have worked OK for the Taliban, ISIS, and other groups that lack heavy ordnance."

If by "small arms," you mean "IEDs and suicide vests," then you'd be correct.

#36 | Posted by DCTexan at 2014-07-28 07:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

"A strong central government is the only way to protect human rights."

Actually, a strong central government is the best way to violate human rights. Central governments don't come much stronger than North Korea or Cuba. Not a whole lot of rights preservation going on there.

"The US Constitution does apply to non-citizens in the US. Not just Americans. Though I suspect you were just being deliberately obtuse..."

I was being obtuse, but so were you. And those rights do apply to non-citizens. Not sure about being able to purchase a gun, but it certainly should be legal.

#37 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-07-28 07:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

"That's popular right-wing mythology."

That's world history. Unless you're reading Howard Zinn...

"But your guns don't protect you from the government."

They did in the south.

"If by "small arms," you mean "IEDs and suicide vests," then you'd be correct."

Those are small arms. And I am correct? The Soviets tired for a decade to route out the Afghans at a time when they were using antique Enfield rifles that the Brits left behind in the 1800s.

This isn't really news. There are a million reasons why progressive groups want to take guns from the public. The fact that they are ineffective is not one of them.

#38 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-07-28 07:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Those are small arms. And I am correct?"

Damn, MADBOMBER, I considered asking if you were advocating the ownership of suicide vests and IEDs for American citizens, but I believed that would have come off a little snarky and detract from the point. I'll ask now. Do you advocate the ownership of suicide vests and IEDs for American citizens? They're small arms, after all.

#39 | Posted by DCTexan at 2014-07-28 07:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Actually, a strong central government is the best way to violate human rights.
#37 | Posted by madbomber

Possibly, but keep in mind that a weak government isn't doing much for human rights in ISIL-occupied Iraq these days. It really depends on what the government's priorities are. The strong central government has to be committed to human rights. Just as ours was when it came to stopping lynching after the Civil War, and again to end Jim Crow a hundred years later.

Strong central government is necessary for human rights. It is not sufficient.

The reason it has to be "central" is because tolerance and acceptance don't percolate from the ground up; it has to be imposed on the haters, top-down. Like when Truman desegregated the military. The military has a head start on non-discrimination compared to the rest of American society and it shows.

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-28 07:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

"But your guns don't protect you from the government."

They did in the south.

Only for four years.

By 1865, the South was a wreck of what it had been before it tried to use guns to protect itself from the government.

#41 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-28 07:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Do you advocate the ownership of suicide vests and IEDs for American citizens? They're small arms, after all."

I can go buy as much tannerite as I want to. It's not a question of being able to own it or not own it. It's like asking if people should have access to ammonium Nitrate, or Diesel fuel, or black powder, or gasoline, or any other explosive ingredients. And the answer is yes. they should have access.

"It really depends on what the government's priorities are."

And that's where you and I part ways. I don't really care what the government's priorities are, nor do I feel that I should be subject to their whims. And to be clear, neither do you. the same strong centralized control could just as easily force an agenda that you disagree with as one you agree with. You may want authoritarianism when it suits your interest, but you're going to be less happy when it doesn't. Personally, I would prefer that authoritarianism not be a possibility. Ever.

#42 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-07-28 08:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Personally, I would prefer that authoritarianism not be a possibility. Ever.
#42 | Posted by madbomber

Then you'd have to favor anarchy.

But you don't favor anarchy.

You favor a Republican form of government, and you want it to impose a capitalist economic paradigm, with sufficient authority to enforce property rights and contacts.

#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-28 10:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

(Republican as in "Republic," not as in "GOP.")

#44 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-28 10:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't really care what the government's priorities are, nor do I feel that I should be subject to their whims.

Makes perfect sense that someone who thinks that way would join the military...

#45 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-28 10:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

"You favor a Republican form of government, and you want it to impose a capitalist economic paradigm, with sufficient authority to enforce property rights and contacts."

I don't want to impose any sort of economic paradigm. Under the free market, anything is possible. But it has to be voluntary. You and 100 of your closest friends can pool your resources and create a commune. And no one will stop you. Workers can create a business where they control the means of production. No one will stop them.

As for property rights, current laws only codify prevailing norms. One could argue that rights preserved behind the barrel of a gun are stronger than those that exist only on paper.

#46 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-07-28 10:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

There are a million reasons why progressive groups want to take guns from the public. The fact that they are ineffective is not one of them.

#38 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-07-28 07:11 PM |

I would claim that those who want to take your guns are essentially the "owners" and "masters" of and who control progressive groups with propaganda and ideology. The urban oligarchs want the masses disarmed and their minions and puppets always obey.

#47 | Posted by Robson at 2014-07-28 11:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't want to impose any sort of economic paradigm. Under the free market, anything is possible.

Who writes this stuff?
The free market is an economic paradigm.
Do you not realize that?
You think freedom is free?
Wow.

#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-29 08:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

"I would claim that those who want to take your guns are essentially the "owners" and "masters" of and who control progressive groups with propaganda and ideology. The urban oligarchs want the masses disarmed and their minions and puppets always obey."

Concur. Progressivism is only the chosen method by which to exert control. Sort of the left wing version of Evangelical conservatism.

"The free market is an economic paradigm."

That's also the message I would want to push, if my end goal was to justify authoritarian control of society's economic capacity.

But here's the problem with your position, at least relative to other systems. The free market occurs not only in the absence of official economic policy, but even when there is an economic policy is in place to suppress free market activity. It's estimated that up to 30% of all transactions in the USSR took place on the black market, despite the fact that these transactions were technically illegal.

Socialism can occur in a free market construct, it just ahs to be voluntary. And what the free market lacks, by definition, is the coersive mechanism necessary to achieve the desired progressive end-state. As long as people are allowed to act in their own best interest, society will never produce the economic outcome that most progressives demand to see.

#49 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-07-29 11:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

And what the free market lacks, by definition, is the coersive mechanism

Get real. Nobody would shop at the "free market" if the weights and measures weren't accurate and the vendors gave you counterfeit money for change.

What keeps vendors honest in the free market? The coercive power of the state. Seriously, how can you not understand something this simple?

#50 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-29 02:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

Perhaps it will be easier for you to grasp in the context of the Second Amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

Regulation is what produces freedom. Get it? The Bill of Rights is what? A list of regulations.

Stay in school, kids.

#51 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-29 02:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

Regulation is what produces freedom. Get it? The Bill of Rights is what? A list of regulations.
Stay in school, kids.

#51 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2014-07-29 02:56 PM | REPLY | FLAG

Well all this time I thought the 'Bill of Rights' was a list of rights. And you view it as a list of regulations. Do you see any difference?

#52 | Posted by RobThomas at 2014-07-29 03:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Regulation is what produces freedom. Get it? The Bill of Rights is what? A list of regulations.

That doesn't make sense to me.

The Bill of Rights is a series of 'negative liberties' (Obama's term). It tells the government what it CANNOT do.

#53 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-29 03:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Bill of Rights is a series of 'negative liberties' (Obama's term). It tells the government what it CANNOT do.

#53 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2014-07-29 03:03 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Some on here obviously think the 'bill of regulations' is the government telling people what they can do. Amazing stuff.

#54 | Posted by RobThomas at 2014-07-29 03:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

Perhaps it will be easier for you to grasp in the context of the Second Amendment:

Odd that you would quote the preamble but omit the the actual grant, the regulation in your vernacular. The grant: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

#55 | Posted by et_al at 2014-07-29 03:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well all this time I thought the 'Bill of Rights' was a list of rights. And you view it as a list of regulations. Do you see any difference?
#52 | Posted by RobThomas

Maybe you need to ask yourself that.
It's a list of things the government can't do.
Do you consider your rights to be things you can't do?

#56 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-29 03:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

Get real. Nobody would shop at the "free market" if the weights and measures weren't accurate and the vendors gave you counterfeit money for change.
What keeps vendors honest in the free market? The coercive power of the state. Seriously, how can you not understand something this simple?

#50 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

IMO Snoofy the free market is less efficient without some "coercive" power. But it doesn't need the coercive power to exist.

If you agree with the above, it is also logical that too much governmental "coercion" can be detrimental to the efficiency of the market.

Its a fine line to walk, IMO we have passed it in someways, and are lagging in others.

#57 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-07-29 03:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Odd that you would quote the preamble

The preamble lays out the hand-in-glove relationship between regulation and freedom.

MadBomber feels it necessary to believe the existence of black markets proves that free markets lack coercive mechanisms. But of course the black market is a response to a coercive mechanism, and the free market operates within the constraints of the coercive mechanisms of the government which allows it to exist.

A few years ago we suffered a major financial catastrophe because of shady actions in the unregulated derivatives market.

#58 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-29 03:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

#50 | POSTED BY SNOOFY
IMO Snoofy the free market is less efficient without some "coercive" power. But it doesn't need the coercive power to exist.

Only if you don't want freedom to endure. Your idea sounds about as well thought out as the transition to Communism will sadly require a "temporary" dictator.

But it doesn't matter anyway. We live in a world with governments and they have coercive power. Look how many times the Interstate Commerce Clause has been invoked to regulate our free markets. Your gedankenexperiment might be fun, but it's not applicable to a reality-based conversation.

#59 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-29 03:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

If you agree with the above, it is also logical that too much governmental "coercion" can be detrimental to the efficiency of the market.

Its a fine line to walk, IMO we have passed it in someways, and are lagging in others.

#57 | Posted by AndreaMackris

I disagree with the above, because free markets are merely an ideological construct, and all markets are regulated markets. But you're certainly correct that over-regulation can dramatically alter market dynamics, to the detriment of participants on both sides.

Really, what it comes down to is how much regulation should be imposed to achieve efficiency. Sure, we need the scales to be accurate. But the government probably only needs to check that annually, or when they get complaints. Another question that government can consider when making regulations is how does the market benefit the public. And this is where the do-gooders really go to town. When I lived in Washington state we had what I consider to be overly restrictive alcohol laws, largely because the regulatory authority seems to think that alcohol is at best grudgingly tolerated in adult society. Another example is the anti-abortion legislation prevalent in so many states now, with the goal of hampering the efficiency of the abortion market.

#60 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-29 03:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

The preamble lays out the hand-in-glove relationship between regulation and freedom.

The premise announces a purpose. How does that purpose limit, or even expand, the grant or restriction?

#61 | Posted by et_al at 2014-07-29 03:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

because free markets are merely an ideological construct, and all markets are regulated markets. But you're certainly correct that over-regulation can dramatically alter market dynamics, to the detriment of participants on both sides. - Snoofy

I disagree that its only an ideological construct, it happens in all sorts of biological and evolutionary mechanisms and self-organizing organisms. Much like the BeeHive behaves very socialist in nature.

We have put a label on it, the free market. It isn't just about lowering the cost of goods, but coming up with new goods as well.

In these natural ways it has no "government". Free market of ideas is not much different than evolution, you can try it, it might succeed if the environment is right for your product and DNA.

#62 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-07-29 04:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Some on here obviously think the 'bill of regulations' is the government telling people what they can do. Amazing stuff."

but it's a position that Snoofy consistently supports. That government is needed to give the people permission to do something, otherwise they would lack that "right." Basically, he does not ackowledge the concept of natural rights. It's a convenient argument if you want to disregard the concept of natural rights, as they would challenge the concept of a society where government was the sole determinor of what is or isn't a right.

"MadBomber feels it necessary to believe the existence of black markets proves that free markets lack coercive mechanisms."

The cosersive presence that needs to be present in the black market is the force opposing it. The rest of your argument in favor of regulation is baseless. If consumers were concerned about operating in an unregulated market, there would not have been a black market. No one forced it to happen. It was the result of a government plan. It was a freely and natrually occuring transaction between willing participants.

"Only if you don't want freedom to endure."

How exactly does "freedom" endure in an environment where, by definition, government prohibits me from acting freely? Is this like the "freedom is slavery" argument? The fact that I need to eat and drink and breath makes me a slave to biologiocal necessity, and the only way to free me of that slavery is to ensure that someone or something does all of those things for me?

#63 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-07-29 04:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Really, what it comes down to is how much regulation should be imposed to achieve efficiency."

Regulation is a mechanism used to create efficiencies. At best it's a means of keeping people honest. At worst, it's a tool used to achieve a political end-state.

#64 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-07-29 04:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

Basically, he does not ackowledge the concept of natural rights.

I acknowledge the concept, I know that today it's called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and I understand that absent a government to enforce your rights, you have none.

Where are the "natural rights" of Cubans and North Koreans? Of blacks when we had slavery? Obviously "natural rights" don't exist. Like "free market" it is an ideal to strive for. It's a name we hang on an idea.

How exactly does "freedom" endure in an environment where, by definition, government prohibits me from acting freely?

Because other people's freedom endures when you are restrained from ripping them off with your faulty scales.

No one forced it to happen. It was the result of a government plan. It was a freely and natrually occuring transaction between willing participants.

In that case, the people participating forced it to happen.

#65 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-29 04:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

I disagree that its only an ideological construct, it happens in all sorts of biological and evolutionary mechanisms and self-organizing organisms. Much like the BeeHive behaves very socialist in nature.

Irrelevant. It's like asking if numbers are real. We all understand what two apples means, but what is meant by "two" just on its own? Can there be two of nothing?

Beyond that, evolutionary mechanism and self-organizing organism are highly regulated.... just like real-world "free markets!"

#66 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-29 04:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

"the free market is less efficient without some "coercive" power. But it doesn't need the coercive power to exist. "

The "free market" is a government program.

#67 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-07-29 04:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

The "free market" is a government program.
#67 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

I know where you got this from, but I disagree.

It does not match the definition of a "program", a government doesn't not have a "free market" program, but certainly a government creates an environment, which is more concise, and my point.

#68 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-07-29 04:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

The on of the points of a government IMO, is to create a stable economic environment.

#69 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-07-29 04:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The on" = One

#70 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-07-29 04:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

Is this like the "freedom is slavery" argument? The fact that I need to eat and drink and breath makes me a slave to biologiocal necessity
#63 | Posted by madbomber

That's not remotely close to what slavery means, which is probably why that argument is so bad. When people say they are a slave to something, they are speaking metaphorically.

"Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property to be bought and sold, and are forced to work.[1] Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demand compensation." en.wikipedia.org

#71 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-29 05:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

The on of the points of a government IMO, is to create a stable economic environment.
#69 | Posted by AndreaMackris

Correct. "Capitalism is a government program." -- George F. Will

#72 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-29 05:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

Maybe you need to ask yourself that.
It's a list of things the government can't do.
Do you consider your rights to be things you can't do?

#56 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Rushing through....

No. I consider my rights to be activities that government can't infringe upon - they are protected from government.

#73 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-29 05:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

They are rights because the government can't infringe upon them.

#74 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-29 05:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

They are rights because the government can't infringe upon them.

Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-29 05:36 PM | Reply

Unless you're a convicted felon or convicted of domestic violence or mental illness or want too high of a caliber of gun etc etc etc

#75 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-29 05:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I acknowledge the concept, I know that today it's called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Wrong."

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn't really address natural rights, at least not in full. Freedom from fear, for instance, isn't feasible (although I don't think the intent was freedom from all fear). Nor is freedom from want, at least not unless there is another component obligating to provide the means that allows one to experience freedom from want without providing anything in return.

"and I understand that absent a government to enforce your rights, you have none."

You prove yourself wrong in this next sentence. Thanks, you saved me the trouble:

"Where are the "natural rights" of Cubans and North Koreans? Of blacks when we had slavery? Obviously "natural rights" don't exist. Like "free market" it is an ideal to strive for. It's a name we hang on an idea."

Those natural rights were abrogated, through the actions of the governments you mention. In fact the biggest threat to natural rights are government. As you have so acutely pointed out.

"It does not match the definition of a "program", a government doesn't not have a "free market" program, but certainly a government creates an environment, which is more concise, and my point."

Yeah. I'm not sure how you could submit that a child trading marbles for hotwheels, or a Russian trading a fur hat for Levis, or a Somalian trading coal for Khat are examples of a government programs. but it si very easy to demonstrate that they took place within the context of a free market.

"The on of the points of a government IMO, is to create a stable economic environment."

Why? If you control the government, you want to create economic policy that benefits and protects you.


#76 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-07-29 07:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Those natural rights were abrogated,

See, this is why I don't like calling them natural rights. How would such a thing even be possible? You can't abrogate a law of nature. But I can deprive you of your natural rights quite easily; my Second Amendment right guarantees it. Human rights is a much more sensible term to me.

Anyway, you can call them "natural rights" or invoke two of Roosevelt's Four Freedoms as you have done. Doesn't matter what you call them. The point is: Your having them is contingent on the government authority permitting you to have them. There's nothing "natural" about it. It's entirely a man-made construct. And it's the social contract which forms the basis of republican government. (In case Mackris is still here, this is not to imply that organisms other than humans can't form organized societies.)

#77 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-29 08:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The on of the points of a government IMO, is to create a stable economic environment."

Why? If you control the government, you want to create economic policy that benefits and protects you.
#76 | Posted by madbomber

It's a virtual certainty that a stable economic environment does benefit and protect whoever controls the government.

#78 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-29 08:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

"See, this is why I don't like calling them natural rights."

The concept of natural rights is that certain rights are inalienable, and not contingent on a specific government or system. That doesn't mean that the can't be compromised, but the person who is doing the compromising is regarded as being in the wrong. Compare that to your argument, where an individual who is exercising his "natural rights" would be in the wrong, (or at least not in the right) for not having first gained permission to so so. Your position seems more in line with older philosophies, such as the divine right of kings, although I wouldn't consider you a monarchist. Divine right of the state would seem to fit your worldview though.

But, in the end, you can call them what you like, pretend they don't exist, whatever. It's up to you. But the concept of these natural rights are the basis for US Declaration of Independence. Even in the concept of the "social contract," which you often bring up, natural rights are a component. Specifically, those rights which cannot be surrendured to the soveriegn.

#79 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-07-30 09:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

"It's a virtual certainty that a stable economic environment does benefit and protect whoever controls the government."

I wouldn't call the North Korean or Cuban economies as being stable, but they most certainly serve to protect the regime. There is no better way to subjugate a population than to strip them of their economic freedom. Ensure that they cannot legally procure their own food, water, medicine, shelter, etc, and you have a society that is wholly dependent on government.

This is why economic freedom is so critical to all other freedoms. Without it, you're not free. I think progressives understand this, and that's why they want a society that has no ability to procures these things.

#80 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-07-30 09:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort