The state of nature

Fri Apr 17 08:31:16 PDT 2009

I agree.  Opposition to licensed concealed carry on college campuses is
irrational.  Further, you  should not  fashion legal rules about rights
based on the one-in-a-million wacko.  Further, machine guns are not
protected by the Second Amendment, the protected weapons must be "in common
use."   How many times do I have to repeat myself?  On another plane, if we
let the abuse of a right by a one-in-a-million wacko lead to diminution of
a constitutional right for everyone, rights are worth very little.  Unlike
many, I believe all of our rights,

Those loved by the left and those loved by the right  should be respected
and not diminished by fear, propaganda and cultural conflict.   I hate
hypocrisy when it comes to constitutional rights.

Ray Kessler

Prof. of  Criminal Justice

Sul Ross State Univ.

From: guayiya [mailto:guayiya at bellsouth.net] 
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 7:01 PM
To: Raymond Kessler
Cc: 'Volokh, Eugene'; conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: The state of nature

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/20090417/d581d0fb/attachment.htm>