The state of nature
guayiya
guayiya at bellsouth.net
Thu Apr 16 17:00:57 PDT 2009
I question the assumption that most of us are rational. All of us are
irrational some of the time.
My father, fwiw, told me that in the 1920s the border between two ethnic
neighborhoods in chicago was defended by machine guns on both sides.
Daniel Hoffman
Raymond Kessler wrote:
> Prof. Johnson wrote:
>
> "Now we are told you cannot bring a gun to a machine gunfight, so
> everyone needs to upgrade from AK 47 to 50 caliber."I assume he was
> referring to my remark about the situation on the border, the conflict
> between the cartels and the Mexican Army, and the irrelevance of
> semi-automatic "assault rifles" to the U.S./Mexico gun trade. I
> suggest that my comment was pulled out of context. No one, incl.
> Justice Scalia, argues that the Second Amendment protects is absolute
> or protects all types of weapons. There are 2 limitations: practical
> and constitutional. No home intruder, or street gang member would
> consider trying to carry a .50 cal. Machinegun. No rational homeowner
> would attempt to use a heavy machinegun for home defense. The type
> of weapon protected has to be reasonably related to the purpose of
> the 2nd Amend., which is mainly personal and home defense. They must
> be "in common use at the time." Neither full automatic weapons nor
> heavy machineguns are in "common use." The Second Amendment protects
> only "lawful uses." It's a good scare tactic to suggest that the 2nd
> Amendment protects fully automatic and heavy weapons, but it is not
> what the Court said in Heller. When people become frightened of
> other people's constitutional rights, it is a sad commentary on the
> land of the free and the home of the brave.
>
>
>
> Finally, it seems to me part of your argument seems to rest on the
> assumption that government intervention is the solution to all
> problems, and that somehow Uncle Sam can restore us to the peaceful
> kingdom. Au contraire! I am not an anarchist or even libertarian,
> but don't forget that there is no such thing as a free lunch: Power
> corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. (Acton?).
>
>
>
> Ray Kessler
>
> Prof. of Criminal Justice
>
> Sul Ross State Univ.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
> [mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
> Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 4:55 PM
> To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> Subject: RE: The state of nature
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20090416/730168ad/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: guayiya.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 143 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20090416/730168ad/attachment.vcf>
More information about the Conlawprof
mailing list