Of all the issues which could be so-labelled (AIDS, smoking, drug use, bird flu – and many other things) – health issues related to firearms – and particularly those firearms legitimately owned by good citizens – have to be at the bottom, if not completely missing from any such list.

What should be at the top? Probably the health practitioner’s problems with themselves as a cause of ‘bad health’;

“Safety breaches in Australian healthcare are killing more people than
breast cancer or road accidents,” Associate Professor Bolsin said.

“But it doesn’t get anything like the attention … there’s no evidence
things have changed over the past 10 years.”

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,22053839-23289,00.html

and have a look at the litany of death caused by the medical establishment
here;

http://www.ssaa.org.au/newssaa/political%20archive/doctorshealth/doctorshealth.htm

Medical incompetence – the REAL public health issue!

If freedom doesn’t form part of the utility question, then what does? If you only consider safety as part of your utility equation, then any number of activities would be eliminated. John is simply stating that he considers that people’s ability to enjoy the ownership and (safe) use of fire arms does form part of the equation.

There is obviously little point in getting into a citations match on gun laws, as youve already made your choice and are not willing to listen to alternatives anyway.

When somebody takes the time to respond to your every point it is a bit shallow to then accuse them of not listening. John appears to be listening to you, he just dosn’t appear to be agreeing with you. There is a big difference.

I have not read “Freakonomics”. However according to the website the first of the two authors seems well credentialled:-

Steven D. Levitt is the Alvin H. Baum Professor in Economics at the University of Chicago, where he is also director of The Becker Center on Chicago Price Theory. In 2004, he was awarded the John Bates Clark Medal, which recognizes the most influential economist in America under the age of 40. More recently, he was named one of Time magazine’s “100 People Who Shape Our World.” Levitt received his B.A. from Harvard University in 1989, his Ph.D. from M.I.T. in 1994, and has taught at Chicago since 1997.

As I have explained previously, as there is a presumption of freedom the burden of proof for showing a utilitarian argument rests with the proponent of government intervention.

I have no presumption of freedom – that is the libertarian perspective. For others in society there may be a presumption of safety (or of sunlight, or free chocolates from the easter bunny). This line of argument is dead from it’s very start.

I depicted your arguments as reactionary in the proper meaning of the word – the libertarian positon as you stated it is that utility is not proven until something bad happens. It’s the very definition of a reactionary policy – somebody must be hurt before changes are made to the law. There is obviously little point in getting into a citations match on gun laws, as you’ve already made your choice and are not willing to listen to alternatives anyway.

Citing Freakonomics as your basis for economic argument has as much weight as citing Michael Crichton for scientific ones.

Where is the overwhelming evidence that government intervention doesn’t increase utility? Another fatuous supposition on which to create a baseless argument. Nobody needs to prove to you anything about the efficacy of government intervention. We have the system we like, libertarians would prefer it overthrown, yet would like the rest of us to prove why that should be so. Do it yourself!

It is wrong to imply this is just a game of “he believes, she believes”. We need evidence before we can justify government action.

You claim that coercion doesn’t have to use violence. I never said it did. But it does require the threat of violence (or at least the threat of some sort of deprevation). Coercion certainly doesn’t mean “unethical behaviour”. It is not coercive to cheat on your wife.

Quoting Gummo won’t help you here. Despite his antics, consequentialism is about consequences, deontelogical arguments are about the inherent virtues of action, coercion is about threat of violence, and political philosophy is not the same as moral philosophy. He provides no reason to object to these basic facts, but relies on insults.

You go on to claim that my philosophy is “reactionary” because I believe in a presumption of freedom. I assume you mean this as a meaningless insult as your claim makes no sense.

You seem convinced that strict gun laws create a utilitarian benefit, but you provide no evidence. If you don’t like the studies of Lott then perhaps the summary by Levitt would be more convincing for you. Check his popular book “Freakonomics” for a layman summary of the extensive gun-law literature.

The question about “how many people need to die” misunderstands the issue at hand. First, deaths aren’t the only issue… there are many elements of existence that impact on utility. This has been explained in depth previously and ironically when libertarians explain this point we have been accused of talking about irrelevant side-tracks… but we are only responding to the implication that “every death must be prevented”!

More importantly, given the overwhelming evidence of history that most government intervention does not increase utility, the requirement for evidence must be more than a hunch or a vibe. Proponents of government action need to show why we should believe their intervention is likely to provide a real net benefit.

Gummo why is the thing you cite an apocryphum

First, because I’m told that Chesterton said something like it, but I’ve never been able to track the original quote down. Ergo, it should be treated as an apocryphal remark.

Second because I was a bit slack about checking the etymology of the word and erroneously treated “apocrypha” as a Latin plural.

Words are essentially just labels for concepts and John seems to have made a special effort to go beyond the sound of the words and reveal the intended concepts behind his choise of words.

As I’ve remarked before (long ago), when one of these stoushes took the linguistic turn, language is the social institution par excellence – so any attempt to go beyond “the sound of the words” – as if meaning were merely a matter of onomatopoeia – is going to be constrained by custom and conventional usage. If it isn’t, you end up with Jabberwocky – a damn fine sounding poem, but little else.

And that atomistic view of what words are is well and truly D-E-A-D, dead. The nails in its coffin were hammered in by Saussure and Wittgenstein. One of the reasons we can’t simply redefine, extend or improve words ad libidem to suit our own argumentative requirements, is the extent to which each word depends on the existence of a whole language for its current meaning.

I reckon that’s enough from me. On the subject of morality and political theory, I don’t have any argument with John anyway, in the same way that I have no arguments with that hypothetical accountant who was convinced that 2 + 2 = 5.

Gummo why is the thing you cite an ‘apocryphum’.

My main objection in this debate is toward the notion that a shift from semi-automatic firearms to alternative firearms should have any causal effect on suicide. A semi-automatic firearm allows you to rapidly discharge a second bullet, however with the first bullet lodged somewhere inside your skull you would not be in a position to take advantage of the easy discharge of a second bullet. The argument that a shift from semi-automatic to non-automatic firearms could or should reduce suicide seems to be very deeply flawed and indifferent to certain mechanical realities.

There is a danger in using statistical correlation to impute real world causation. For instance the following argument could be derived from the statistics if statistics were all that mattered:-

1. Gun ownership increased after 1996.
2. Suicide declined after 1996.
3. Gun ownership reduces suicide.

Obvious this notion does not stack up. Neither does the following:-

1. Gun ownership shifted from semi to non-automatic after 1996.
2. Suicide declined after 1996.
3. Banning semi-automatic weapons reduces suicide.

John Humphries wrote:

I dont believe there is good evidence to suggest that strict gun laws increase utility, therefore we should not have those laws.

Key word: Believe. I believe there is plenty of good evidence. See how that works? Societies built on beliefs are doomed to failure.

And what does it mean to suggest that somebody wants to coerce their definition on everybody else? Im not threatening violence. You sentence simply doesnt make sense.

Coercion does not have to use violence, merely unethical behaviour. In this case you deliberately changed the definition of a word in an argument. Gummo had a nice quote that sums up the situation and I like it so much I’m going to repeat it.

Gummo Trotsky said:

To paraphrase an apocryphum of G K Chesterton – look, you can use the word chair to mean anything you like. But if you insist on using it where I would use the word camel we have little to talk about.

John Humphreys further wrote:

To summerise (sic) my argument, people should be free unless there is evidence that restrictions on their freedom will create a utilitarian benefit. There is no evidence that strict gun laws provide a utilitarian benefit. Therefore we should not have strict gun laws.

So, your personal libertarian philosophy is essentially reactionary. Tell us, exactly how many people do you require to die before deciding that the utility no longer outweighs the freedom? Whose evidence do you require and why ignore what we already have (there is definitely evidence over the efficacy of gun laws, that you choose to ignore it doesn’t make it disappear).

“Disturbed” in that sentence is completely inapt. I’d be disturbed if I discovered that my tax agent or accountant deeply and sincerely believed that 2 + 2 = 5 and no amount of persuasion could convince him to accept the standard view of the matter – because my own immediate interests might be adversely affected by his eccentric notions.

As you go on, in four paragraphs, to demonstrate that you didn’t understand my (trifling) objection to your use of the word deontological, by producing even more plausible looking nonsense, your belief that you “understand etc” is patently false.

To paraphrase an apocryphum of G K Chesterton – look, you can use the word “chair” to mean anything you like. But if you insist on using it where I would use the word “camel” we have little to talk about.

In the context of the issue at hand I was talking about political philosophy which is obviously just one sub-set of moral philosophy. Of course, deontelogical considerations in the moral sphere extend far beyond the simple question of “freedom” and “non-freedom” and so my dichotomy would look simplistic.

However, in the “political philosophy” subset, where we are only interested in the questions of government (ergo violent/ceorcive) action, the only deontelogical question of relevance is the “freedom” v “non-freedom” question.

As Rubie rightly notes, there are many other areas of life other than political philosophy, and he gives the example of circumcision. He might also have mentioned religion and lifestyle choice. I am not suggesting that “freedom” v “non-freedom” is a sufficient moral guide to making these inevitably personal and complex life decisions.

Finally, despite the risk that I will be further abused for saying this, I only have limited time and would prefer not to be involved in debates that are based on personal insults.

You say that “purely utilitarian argument doesn’t have to endorse paternalism”, but where have I ever suggested that? Of course utilitarian arguments don’t necessarily endorse patneralism. I believe (as per J.S. Mill) that utilitarian arguments generally don’t support paternalism. Further, you know I believe this.

I agree that utilitarian arguments have to take account of third-party effects. They also have to take into account of first and second person effects. Utilitarianism is about maximising total utility.

I agree that the liberal position is generally preferable, but one reason it is generally preferable is that the liberal position maximises utility (as argued by J.S. Mill among many others). You have argued this position yourself previously.

But none of this impacts too much on the central element of the debate, which is whether strict gun laws do create a utility benefit. I think we both agree that this is the key question.

I’m truely perplexed by your implication that I believe utilitarianism endorses paternalism. You know I don’t believe that and have never said anything that could be interpretted that way. Is this an arguing tactic or just a friendly jibe?

I agree that a workable utilitarianism should not consider preferences about other people’s preferences.

I haven’t tried to label anybody as “anti-liberal” or anything else. I note that I have been labelled quite a few unfriendly things. I have simply argued, repeatedly and consistently, that the government should only interfere in private decisions if there is a good utilitarian argument. I don’t believe there is good evidence to suggest that strict gun laws increase utility, therefore we should not have those laws.

If so, I’m not sure where that came from. I’m happy to debate moral philosophy with you, but I’m not sure exactly what point you are disagreeing with. Regarding deontelogical morality are you suggesting a better alternative than liberty? Regarding consequentialist morality are you suggesting a better alternative than utility? Or are you disagreeing with the general distinction between deontelogical (means) and consequentialist (ends) in moral philosophy? If so — why?

And what does it mean to suggest that somebody wants to coerce their definition on everybody else? I’m not threatening violence. You sentence simply doesn’t make sense.

I disagree with your suggestion that morality is purely personal. There is one very important part of morality that extends past the personal and that is the issue of the appropriate use of violence. This area of philosophy is generally known as “political philosophy” (as the “legitimate” use of violence* is generally done by government), but it is rooted in moral philosophy more broadly. For example, the choice about whether to kill or rape or rob your neighbour is not a purely personal decision.

On the issues of personal decisions regarding the use of things you own (ie excluding the unauthorised use of your neighbour or their property) I agree that this is a very personal issue. As a libertarian it probably wouldn’t surprise you to hear that I believe a person should have a very high degree of individual freedom. I’m not sure whether there really is one better way to live life (eg religion, circumcision, work-life balance, how many children, etc) but even if there is I doubt people’s ability to perfectly find it and agree on it.

Also, you say that I answer your question “is freedom the only ultimate good” in the affirmative. Actually, I answered it in the negative. I can’t see how you got this wrong. Specifically, I wrote “the answer is no” and then I went on to show how utilitarian considerations can override deontelogical (ie freedom) based morality.

You ask a series of additional questions. First, I agree that increasing the price of guns and having them illegal will reduce access to guns for some people, including some criminals (but I note that this is only one part of the story). Second, I have never conflated civilian mass shootings and criminality. Third, nobody has ever claimed that the LDP are the great authority on criminality. I’m not sure where this questions come from but they don’t seem to be related to the central issue of debate, which is whether strict gun laws create a utilitarian benefit.

You then dismiss the libertarian position as “an abstract thought experiment”. Are you suggesting there is no evidence on the effects of gun laws? If so, I am pleased to tell you there is a huge amount of evidence.

In conclusion, besides insults I can’t actually find out exactly what your argument is. To summerise my argument, people should be free unless there is evidence that restrictions on their freedom will create a utilitarian benefit. There is no evidence that strict gun laws provide a utilitarian benefit. Therefore we should not have strict gun laws.

* Here used to mean the initiation of violence or coercion

1. It is not a good policy because it creates a black market, i.e. even more violent crime.

No. The black market is already there. If it isn’t guns, it’s drugs (or alcohol).
There is no possible way to determine whether that market will necessarily become more violent. Either way,price goes up and availability drops which is the desired outcome. We know it works – unlike the unproven assertions of the gun liberationists, who have only some rather sad examples of what an over-armed society looks like (hint, starts with I, ends with q).

Gun laws won’t stop people like Cho? The incidence of these events is much lower in places like Australia and the UK compared to the US. Yes there are other cultural differences, but discounting our stronger gun laws is counter productive.

Okay David, what is morality then?

Unlike Mr Humphreys, I’m not glad you asked, as I have no blustering, self deceiving but comforting definition I would coerce onto everybody else. Morality is personal, not universal. True, many people share a common set of behaviours they regard as ethical (and therefore moral), but absurd, reductionist arguments to attempt to prove personal prejudices are not helpful. Where I find morality, you might not. Those things that I find to be evil and abhorrent, you might find to be virtuous (think circumcision for example). We likely will never agree.

“No answer on why pricing guns out of the range of criminals is good policy.
No answer on why we need to conflate civilian mass shootings and criminality.
No answer on why the LDP are the great authority on criminality anyway.”

1. It is not a good policy because it creates a black market, i.e. even more violent crime.

2. Mass shootings by defenition are criminal, but they are indeed different to virtually all other homocide. Whatever your position on guns is, gun laws would not have stopped someone like Cho. You might design a law that can do that, but it is going to be unfeasible.

3. I’ll put it this way – I’ll quote Gummo – “Baker and McPhedrans defences of their study are as laughably absurd as the original study itself.” Yet Leigh and Neill did not account for self selection bias or other explanatory variables, nor did they test for strucutral breaks even though they believed a longer dataset would be better. If you want to facetiously paint us like that David, we’re in the picture by default.

Jason is right about assessing policy. Until you get shafted in some way by a Govenrment department. Then you’ll “just know” it is wrong…

There are two elements of morality: means & ends. Regarding means (ie holding ends constant) the choice is between freedom and non-freedom. With that choice I think the preference is obvious. Regarding ends (ie holding means constant) the choice is between utility and non-utility. With that choice I think the preference is obvious.

Utter rubbish. Redefining morality as simplistic notions of means/ends/freedom/non-freedom and then arguing your case on that basis is the worst of the ego-centric logical fallacies.

I was arguing a purely utilitarian argument and so whether the death was caused by yourself or another person isnt relevant

Well then you’re completely confused John, because a purely utilitarian argument doesn’t have to endorse paternalism since paternalism is costly to enforce as well as being dismissive of the preferences of the individual. A purely utilitarian argument *has* to take account of third-party effects. Therefore whether a death is caused by myself as opposed to being caused by someone else *is* relevant to utilitarianism since the latter comes under third party effects which is the only thing that, as a liberal, I am concerned with.

Utilitarianism doesn’t have to endorse paternalism. Go back and read JS Mill whose defence of liberty was essentially utilitarian and he talks about allowing a ‘cooling off’ period at the most, and otherwise says that the preferences of the person to take a risk or commit suicide or whatever are his own to make. If he weighs his death or his engaging in a risky activity highly enough then utility is increased by allowing him to satisfy his revealed preference. But if his conduct has implications for third parties going about their business elsewhere then further calculation is needed. I don’t concede btw in this argument that the utility of the family should enter into the calculation since I think a pragmatic workable utilitarianism would have to rule out preferences about other people’s preferences. But general third party effects do matter and are all that matter.

I am essentially a pure utilitarian who has no time at all for natural rights, which I regard as mumbo-jumbo and I have never seen a good utilitarian case for paternalism.

Therefore when certain pro-gun proponents take it upon themselves to label as anti-liberal anyone who supports gun control, they are showing their misunderstanding of libertarianism/classical liberalism. Gun control is more like toxic waste regulation than it is, say, a prohibition of bungee jumping.

The argument about guns that I have promoted is a purely utilitarian (ie ends-morality) argument

my original position does not