The unregulated invisible hand of arms race in the state of nature.

[Calvin Johnson]

Eugene-

                There is an inevitable "nash equilibrium" on guns and
more lethal weapons, in the state of nature, which is a degradation of
our situation.   I do believe that Adam Smith is right, or at least must
be given his due within a broad range.  The unregulated free market will
lead to a supply of goods that satisfies varying demands.   But In arms
control, the invisible hand in a libertarian setting inevitable makes
all of us worse off.

                Start with a peaceable land in which no guns are allowed
or none have been invented.   Yes there is violence and occasional
murder or manslaughter(alcohol having been invented), but a a low level.
A defensive home owner buys a gun for comparative advantage to prevent
being beaten up by club or stabbed, and the gun then becomes generally
available for sale.   Now neighbors hostile to each other must buy guns
to keep up with the guy with guns.  Now there are a lot more deaths
because guns kill faster, both by accident and on purpose then clubs.
Both sides would have been better off without guns.  Each in pursuit of
their own security has decreased the sum of security in the
neighborhood.   Both of course would be better off moving to a
neighborhood where there are no guns, except of course, the guns will
follow. 

The more guns the more deaths.    Now we are told you can not bring a
gun to a machine gunfight, so everyone needs to upgrade from AK 47 to 50
calibre.   

                The libertarian self protection inevitable leads to a
more dangerous overall position because each side increases the total
insecurity of the system in trying to increase their own security.

                The way to improve the sum of human happiness and safety
is government intervention, talking away all guns. Then we return to the
peaceable kingdom.  Government intervention into invisible hand
situation that impfove the world do harm, but government intervention
into invisible hand situations that reduce total security, will increase
total security. 

                Whatever the 2d amendment was about it is fair that the
Founders were not trying to decrease individual safety, as unfettered
arm's races do.  

 

Calvin H. Johnson 
Andrews & Kurth Centennial Professor of Law 
The University of  Texas  School of Law 
727 E. Dean Keeton (26th) St. 
Austin, TX 78705 
(512) 232-1306 (voice) 
FAX: (512) 232-2399 
Website: http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/cvs/chj7107_cv.pdf 
For reviews, chapters, discounts and news on Johnson, Righteous Anger at
the Wicked States: The Meaning of the Founders Constitution (Cambridge
University Press 2005) see
http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/calvinjohnson/RighteousAnger/

From: Raymond Kessler [mailto:rkessler at sulross.edu] 
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 10:03 AM
To: Calvin Johnson; 'Volokh, Eugene'; Sanford Levinson
Subject: RE: The function of interpreting the 2d Amendment as guns
outside the national guard

 

Calvin:

Thanks for enlightening us.  I guess we all need to watch more movies
before posting on issues of public policy and constitutional law. J

 

Ray Kessler

Prof. of  Criminal Justice

Sul Ross State Univ.

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20090416/da729643/attachment.htm>