The state of nature

Thu Apr 16 14:55:04 PDT 2009

            Well, now that friends of mine who support a right to
concealed carry on campuses as well as elsewhere - a position that I
think is quite respectable, and that may well be right - and who think
that such a right would both protect self-defense and diminish crime
have become "evil forces" (not just factually mistaken but "evil"), I
think I'm going to try to sit out the rest of the conservation with
Prof. Johnson.  

            I should also mention that it's hard for me to interpret "I
am sorry to see so many people reveling in it, Columbine, Virginia Tech,
Birmingham" as anything but a deliberate smear.  I don't know a single
gun-rights supporter who remotely "revel[s] in" mass murder.  I take it
that we wouldn't say that opponents of alcohol prohibition "revel" in
the tens of thousands of people who die each year as a result of
alcohol, or that opponents of drug prohibition "revel" in the lives lost
to drug addiction.  

It seems to me pretty easy to acknowledge that someone may support some
activity because of his judgment about its value, while genuinely
regretting its costs (even if one disagrees with that person about the
balance of cost and value).  But what I see in Prof. Johnson's posts,
and not just this one (consider, for instance, his favorable quote of
the statement that "nothing is more chilling than a gun advocate racing
before a camera to embrace a lunatic's right to carry and kill"), is not
just a refusal to acknowledge that, but something that I can only see as
an assertion of the opposite.  I usually try to be charitable in my
interpretation of others' assertions, but I don't really see any other
interpretation here.

            Eugene

From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Calvin Johnson
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 2:38 PM
To: William Funk; conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: The state of nature

Again the inevitable Nash Equilibrium is that things will get worse,
every day in some little way.  Each separate individual arming
themselves solely for defense gives incentives for necessary counter
arms, and individual security measures decrease the total security.   I
understand it is hard to reduce the level of armament.  All law is just
talk.   (although as you surmise, "talk" was just a typo in the original
message).  

                We need a Green Zone in this country, where we disarm.
I would hope that the class room might be such a Green Zone, but then
there are evil forces on the other side.  

                And so we return to the state of nature, brutish, nasty
and short, without hope of ever turning back to a lesser level of
violence.   Death should be proud; she is winning, with greater
sureness, now indeed the sureness of a Nash Equilibrium.  The government
should stop this trend, but no, the 2d Amendment ties her hand, and so
the lock step of arms continues unregulated unabated.  

                But I am sorry to see so many people reveling in it,
Columbine, Virginia Tech, Birmingham.  

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: William Funk [mailto:funk at lclark.edu] 
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 4:04 PM
To: Calvin Johnson; 'Raymond Kessler'; 'Volokh, Eugene'; Sanford
Levinson; conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: The unregulated invisible hand of arms race in the state of
nature.

Professor Johnson wrote: "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."  I think he meant "taking away" all
guns, but even if it were constitutionally and politically possible to
take away all guns, which it isn't (we can't even enact sensible
registration laws), it is not practically possible.  Not even close.
"Talking" away guns actually seems about as far as we can go.  

Bill Funk

Lewis & Clark Law School

________________________________

From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Calvin Johnson
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 8:41 AM
To: Raymond Kessler; Volokh, Eugene; Sanford Levinson;
conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: The unregulated invisible hand of arms race in the state of
nature.

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/20090416/0b9fcb1b/attachment.htm>