All these things are terrible totalitarian incursions into American lives. How can they possibly have anything to do with libertarianism?

I think you're confusing neoconservatism with libertarianism. A libertarian supports states' rights etc because it limits the power of the government, not because it frees them to build a more repressive one at home. Just because libertarians happen to be on the same side of some issues as the nazi-lights doesn't mean they're the same people...

States' rights is hardly a primary focus of libertarianism, so I'm not sure I see your point. It sounds to me like you're throwing the baby out with the bath-water. Inventing new drugs will inevitably lead to the abuse of those drugs by the stupid or desperate, but that's no good reason to eschew all the good they can do...

Libertarianism is based on the idea that the civil liberties of the individual must always take precedence over the power of the government, except in the case where the exercise of those liberties presents a direct diminishment of another's liberties. States are just another government to be reined in, so saying that libertarianism is about state's rights is really missing the point.

Of course there are no examples of pure libertarian societies in history, because our species has labored under the yoke of one tyrant after another since it's evolution. Whether it's the chief, the king, the priest, the fuhrer, the "great society", or the commisar, someone is *always* trying to control the lives of others. However, the fact that no one has ever succeeded in producing one is hardly evidence that it can't work. No one had successfully produced a flying machine before the Wright brothers, and no one had successfully tried a democratic republic before 1776, but look how those turned out.

I'm not saying that state versus federal control is a cure-all, I'm saying that condemning libertarian principles because some people who call themselves libertarians aren't is like saying atheism is a religion because some atheists act like supernaturalists instead of rationalists.

As for proof of libertarian principles, how about the "war on drugs"? In the early nineties, Portugal had as bad a drug problem as every other western nation. Then they decriminalized all drug use. As of today, they have extremely low rates of both drug use and drug-related crime, and lower violent crime rates than virtually aery nation in the western world.

Or, how about gun control? Every nation, state, and city that has implemented strict personal gun ownership bans, has seen a huge increase in violent crime. In those few US locales where where gun ownership has been encouraged, violent crime rates have dropped significantly. In one town in Georgia which mandated that every household must have a gun back in the '80s, home invasion dropped by nearly 100% overnight, and remains unheard of to this day.

Most libertarians hope that as a race, we can some day grow up and expect people to take responsibility for their own lives, as all our available evidence shows that demanding personal responsibility always results in a better quality of life for everyone.

Blaise:

Every nation, state, and city that has implemented strict personal gun ownership bans, has seen a huge increase in violent crime.

Oh yes, because Japan is so much more violent than the USA (for example) and rises in violent crime can only ever be down to whether or not the victim is potentially armed.

But go on, define 'huge' and then produce your statistics that show 1) the huge rise in violent crime as you defined and 2) that this was down to the imposition of strict gun control and ONLY strict gun control. Because as we all know, those countries with little to no gun control, why they are just paradises.

No doubt about it, no gun control just wins out over gun control when it comes to crime.

No problem, Jimmy. Happy to oblige. I define multi-digit increases in half a decade as 'huge'. Specifically in recent years, in 1997 Britain banned handguns, and between 1998 and 2003 gun crimes doubled. Likewise, in 1996 Australia enacted sweeping gun control laws. In the six years following, violent crime rates rose by 32 percent. As for Japan, since their bans extend back before WWII, and there don't seem to be any statistics from previous, I'm not sure what your point is.

For sources and further instructional reading for you, how about this Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy study which shows that in all the developed nations studied, violent crime rates vary inversely with gun ownership. Or this study.

And in this article, there's a perfect point-counterpoint comparison of two local municipalities, one which banned all handguns, and one which mandated their ownership, both at about the same time. Needless to say, crime increased significantly in the ban town, and dropped precipitously in the mandate town.

Hopefully, Jimmy, you can overcome your sarcasm fit and knee-jerk attitude long enough to educate yourself...

Blaise:

Specifically in recent years, in 1997 Britain banned handguns, and between 1998 and 2003 gun crimes doubled

It sounds so simple when you say it like that doesn't it? Sure showed me, didn't you? Incidentally, why did you swap from violent crimes to gun crimes?

What you failed to mention is that firearms offences reported in the UK include imitation firearms, not banned until later and, depending on the figures used, sometimes airguns, also not banned. And did you stop to think what might happen if you make firearms laws stricter? An increase in the number of firearms offences, perhaps? Just maybe? And if you make real firearms difficult to get hold of, what might people turn to instead? Maybe an easily available alternative like, say, an imitation one or an airgun? Indeed, firearms offenses actually continued to increase in the UK until 2006, when they began to drop. Which I notice you don't mention, since it clearly pokes a hole in your argument that it should be going up still.

As the BBC article states:
The figures do not show that gun crime is prolific or widespread in England and Wales.

But of course that was not entirely your point (although it certainly is your implication, don't pretend otherwise), your point was that banning guns causes a 'huge' increase in violent crime, and this is only one facet of that (and firearms offences are not necessarily violent crimes either so you aren't even being fair in your comparison).

Now, was violent crime trending upwards in England and Wales before the firearms ban? Why it just so happens that it was. So now you have to move to point 2 - demonstrate that the 'huge' increase in violent crime was specifically because of the ban on guns. You don't do so. You imply it of course, but provide no evidence. Do I really have to tell a skeptic or critical thinker that correlation does not equal causation? Critical thinking 101, right? Someone should write a blog post about skeptics and gun control arguments...

Oh, and did you mention (or even notice in your rush to pat yourself on the back for finding figures you thought proved your point) that the methods for counting crime in England and Wales changed in 1998? Did you mention that this change meant more crimes were now being counted than before the change? Did you mention that the British Home Office specifically points out that you therefore cannot accurately compare figures from after 1998 with those before? No? You did of course know this, having carefully considered the data? Right?

Oh, and did you mention that the introduction of the National Crime Reporting Standard across England and Wales in 2002 also affected the data on crime? Guess what? It makes comparison of data after 2002 with data before then wrong as well. Oh dear. But don't take my word for it, go here.

So let's see. You can't compare crime data gathered in England and Wales before 1998 with crime data from any year after that. And then, you can't compare crime data gathered from 1998 to April 2002 (and in fact some police forces in England and Wales adopted the NCRS before that so you can't even compare data from some police forces) with anything later than that. Why does that seem important here...?

I wonder just how many people use these crime figures to compare 1998-2003 without realising you can't.

Data reporting FAIL.

Now, you did mention that town in Georgia that mandated gun ownership and how that made home invasion fall dramatically - so is the inverse true in the England and Wales figures - did burglary (the English equivalent) show a huge increase after 1998? Well, according to the Home Office figures burglary did not increase hugely between 1998 and 2002. In fact, burglary went down. One might even say it was in fact a huge decrease (953,184 in 1998 under the new standard to 836,027 in 2001 under the same standard and 878,509 in 2002 under the second new standard which caused more crimes to be counted than prior to its introduction). Oh dear.

Hopefully, Blaise, you can overcome your smug sense of never being at fault long enough to educate yourself...

Again, for your figures on Australia, what is the evidence that this increase is down purely to gun control laws? Or are you arguing that since A happened before B, A caused B? Really? What were the trends before then? Was there any change in how the data was gathered or reported, as there was in the UK?

As for Japan, since their bans extend back before WWII, and there don't seem to be any statistics from previous, I'm not sure what your point is.

Do you ever think through the implications of your arguments?

You are arguing that strict gun laws lead to huge increases in violent crime. The extension of this, and you are specifically arguing this, is that countries with lax or no gun control should be or would be less violent than those with strict gun control - the figures I provided show this is not the case. Furthermore though, shouldn't countries with long term strict gun laws be hugely (your word) more violent since, by your own implication, gun control equals continuing and huge increases in violent crime? Therefore, shouldn't countries with a long history of lax gun control be significantly less violent than those with a long history of strict gun control because violent crime drops (your claim) or at worst stays the same in one whilst increasing, hugely, in the other?

SO, if Japan has had strict gun control since before World War II, why is it not hugely more violent than the USA which has had very lax gun control since before World War II? Unless, shock horror, it isn't as simple as you are making out...

Japan, with its long history of strict gun control, should be more violent then the USA with its long history of lax gun control, according to you - but it isn't. In fact, the exact opposite is true. How does that fit in with your argument?

You, Blaise, have to demonstrate specifically that rises in violent crime are down to strict control of gun ownership, you still have not.

Incidentally, the links you posted don't work, all I get is a blank page when I click on them.

And I thought IntenseDebate didn't have a comment length limit. You live and learn.

Techskeptic:

Don't apologise for the comment limit, not your fault and hardly the end of the world! I think it has something to do with me using MSN Explorer anyway since it complained about this comment as well, but didn't when I switched to Firefox.

My point is not even an anti gun control or pro gun control one (people refuse to look at the issue critically or skeptically, so why bother anyway) - Blaise claimed that a huge rise in violent crime in every state with gun control was proof that libertarian principles work. Yet Blaise can offer no proof that the rise in violent crime is down only to gun control, or that there indeed was a huge rise in violent crime in every state with strict gun control because of the strict gun control, but claims it anyway.

Blaise claims some aspect of policy as a libertarian principle like ideas are exclusively one thing or the other, claims it shows this or that with no evidence or with dodgy evidence at best and then pretends everyone who disagrees is obviously just an idiot, end of story. They're no different to any other libertarian I've argued with - completely and fanatically devoted to the cause no matter what.

As some evidence of this I offer the use of the British crime statistics - Blaise either did not bother to research why the figures went up so rapidly in a short space of time or they did and chose to ignore that - they either found what they wanted and looked no further or they lied.

Typical libertarian behaviour, if my own experience is anything to go by.

Oh and what a surprise, the Cato Institute's claims about Portugal and drug decriminalisation are not as black and white as claimed either:

Beckley Foundation report on drug decriminalisation.

Blaise makes it sound like Portugal is no longer involved in the "War on Drugs". He's wrong - they treat drug users as victims rather than criminals, but Portuguese authorities are still very much involved in actively preventing drug trafficking.

Also of note: heroin use went down (hence a drop in HIV/AIDs cases) but cocaine and cannabis use went up.

The report linked states:

Patterns of drug use and related problems often change, even when there is no change in legal or institutional framework for their regulation. For example, other countries and states that have previously reduced the penalties applied for drug possession have not seen major changes in the patterns of use as a result... Given the oblique nature of the relationships between drug market trends and policy responses, coupled with the variety of responses that form the Portuguese drug strategy, it is difficult to attribute any changes in drug use indicators in Portugal solely to the 2001 law. [my emphasis]

The Beckley Foundation report also points out that are problems determining if there has been a reduction in problematic drug use since there are no regular surveys of drug use taken, and many or the surveys done involve self reporting - which is vulnerable to perceptions of acceptance of drug use. The report then gives figures for the prevelance of drug use in 16-18 year olds in 1999 and 2003. It rose from 12.3% to 17.7%, but also suggests caution in reading anything into these figures. If only the Cato Institute had the same honesty.

And here's an excerpt from the report's conclusion:

The Portuguese experience cannot provide a definite guide to the effects of decriminalisation of drugs, only indications of the results of decriminalisation in the specific Portuguese context.

Yet the libertarians call it proof that libertarian principles work full stop.

It does pay to educate yourself, doesn't it? Especially when dealing with claims made by libertarians.

You're absolutely right, Jimmy. It pays to educate yourself. Thanks for continuing my education by proving once again that you can always count on a troll to derail a civil conversation!

thanks, JB. u de man!

Good reasons. I like them. I appreciate your post. keep it on.

Centralization is not an option! If govermental standards will be putted everywhere it won't guarantee their implementation and of course it needs more contollers.
Google+ Facebook Twitter

There are rezones why i do not buy it. It is entirely done and dusted with the right and effectiveness. The schemes of the satisfaction are done and entirely done.it is imposed and suggested.

This is a great feature for sharing this informative message. I am impressed by the knowledge Also visit reliable Custom Essay help.