- Conservatives...friends of liberty.??!
- Medical studies aren't reliable. My comment over theresays that by backwards Bayesian analysis, this suggests that the real chance of finding a correct correlation is close to 1 in 500...which means that there will be more studies that are false, but successfully replicated than true studies, assuming p=0.05.
- Fabulous history of libertarianism...covering especially the history from Locke to WWII...when libertarianism was firmly a part of liberalism...before Rand and Rothbard redefined things in the post-war era.
- Ikea channels Moldbug.
- Caplan, then Wilson on marriage as comparable to voluntary military service. I think that finite duration terms, as per Hebrew debt-annulment after 7 years is an important aspect that's underappreciated. You are not, at 20, capable of understanding who you will be at 40...and likely that's also true 20 years later. A limitation on the ability of people to make decisions that are bad for themselves sounds preferable to a lack of said limitation.
- Mungowitz on Stand Your Ground. Someone else smart on my blogroll read it, and said Munger's wrong...and I liked that better...but I can't find it.
Monday, April 2, 2012
Linky
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
Regarding Ikea: no escape for Tyler Durden!
They are channeling Spencer Heath MacCallum
Moldbug or Kunstler?
Stand Your Ground makes sense to me. But as "public policy" (man how I loathe that phrase), it's a hard sell to the public because of the problem of the seen and unseen. You see the few cases where it is abused; you don't see the many cases where it is not, much less the thousands of crimes that didn't happen because would-be crooks were deterred from even beginning to attempt certain kinds of crime.
SYG does have inescapable slippage; it can be abused. ("Castle" doctrine does too, but it's harder to lure someone into your house to murder.) So the question is one of tradeoffs. Does the additional power that the armed citizen has with SYG, and the resulting good effects (wounded/dead/deterred/captured criminals) more than make for the occasional abuse? I think so, anyway. My goal is a society as safe as that of 1910. Better, actually -- our tech is better than their tech, so there's no reason we should not get crime down to perhaps 1/100 of its current level.
Of course, to the progressive the idea that an innocent criminal could be killed -- killed! -- with a horrid, awful gun for some minor little crime like theft is flat out abhorrent. So a lot of how you see the issue gets back to your political philosophy. Is a life "of incalculable value, [so] that no amount of property is worth it"? Well, perhaps they might rethink that.
Leonard,
I think what the progressive is really afraid of is this.
Minorities A, B, and C are making a nuisance of themselves on public transit vehicle with extremely loud voices and profanity. Non-minority D, largely because he knows he has tactical dominance because of his CCW, confronts them, asking them to pipe down. They attack him and he shoots all three of them dead. Civility then prevails again on the light rail until everyone forgets about the incident.
Leonard,
I largely count myself as a Texan, with most of the issues that come with that. Governor shooting Coyotes because they threatened his dog? Where's the issue? That the governor has a wimpy-ass dog that's threatened by Coyotes, instead of a real dog?
Jehu,
I think this spins it into too much of a minority issue. The question is one of responsible citizenry. An armed citizen is a responsible citizen, and whether he kills someone or not is between him and God. Deeply, progressives don't like the kind of self-reliance that gun ownership, and especially gun-totin CCW folks engender.
On a less critical note: Progressives dislike gross violence, and care less about net violence. If something increases gross violence, but decreases net violence, you can expect progressives to be opposed. I think the gross/net distinction is far more defensible than your minority line.
Jehu, yes -- your hypothetical is an example of the "innocent criminal", a phrase I invented facetiously but with a kernel of truth. Of course, your youths are not innocent -- they attacked the CCWer. Which is, of course, assault at minimum. Whereas his action -- asking them to shut up -- is perfectly legal, within his rights, and also, reasonable (at least according to the dominant culture, which it ought to be their responsibility to honor when they are in it.)
Trayvon Martin is a real-world innocent criminal, at least if the thing did go down as I suspect it did.
Aretae,
The minority youths example is the most likely case to actually get them in an uproar. Can you deny that? Otherwise it'll barely make the back page news in the city where it happens.
Jehu,
Difference between: this is what might happen and this is the prior (actually held) justification.
I agree that CCW tends to result in your line. I don't agree that that is conscious or subconscious anyone's motivation for oppoosing.
Post a Comment