 |
|
|
 THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE Number 865, March 27, 2016 The only reason somebody would avoid the Zero Aggression Principle is that he's planning to exercise a right he falsely imagines he has to do something to you he wouldn't be able to do in the presence of the Zero Aggression Principle.
Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise Caetano v. Massachusetts settles one issue. SCOTUS will not tolerate what can best be described as fantasy based challenges to the Second Amendment. They are throwing out the "Not invented before 1794" argument and the too weird argument as well as the not suitable for militia service argument. This leaves the hoplophobes one argument, that the demands of public safety are such that the state may reduce a God given right, the right to possess and have available the tools needed to protect one's life, loved ones, liberty, and property, to a highly regulated privilege. The reasoning will be that the collective right of the people to be safe outranks the right of any individual member to have the tools of self defense. It's okay to throw Al to the wolves to keep Neil, Cathy, Richard, Ken, Helen, et alia safe. According to one court in Illinois it's okay to throw Al to the wolves so that the others can feel safe. There's joke current with the punchline: "I don't have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you." As long as the collective is safe the individual is expendable. Well, I'm "you," the guy who can't outrun the bear. So you will understand if my survival plan is to fight back so viciously the bear will go after someone else. You will excuse me if that means I reserve the right to acquire the necessary tools to achieve that end (cash money is to achieve that end is something else.). And I'm sure that most of you subscribe to the theory "allow individuals to defend themselves, including respecting their right to arm themselves, and between them they will keep the collective safe. Like so many issues in the struggle between liberty and statism, in the end the gun control debate is between collectivism and individualism. Not surprisingly many would be rulers and people who would rely on the herd for safety support restrictions on personal weapons, while those who support liberty strongly support the right of individuals to arm themselves. Caetano v. Massachusetts takes the lid of this point.
Just click the red box (it's a button!) to pay the author
This site may receive compensation if a product is purchased |
|
|
|
Previous
Contents
Next
