The correct libertarian position is not "pro-gun"

in guns •  4 months ago

if-i-have-fmvzhv.jpg
I don't need a right to own a car. I don't need a right to own a computer. I don't need a right to own a cell phone, or a selfie stick, or a mankini, or a collection of Star Wars action figures, or a margarita machine, or a nose ring, or booty shorts with juicy written across the butt. I don't need a right to own a firearm, because I have a right to own private property. I don't need the 2nd Amendment, but it doesn't work anyway. If my right to own private property is respected, I don't need a separate subsidiary right to own a gun.
5cf750f69fd3379ed8a5d4dfc366446e.jpg
The only reason I would need a special right to own a gun is if my general right to property is not respected and someone claims to have the right to decide what property I can and can't own based on their preferences. I have a right to own property just as I own myself. My right to self-ownership means that I can own whatever property I homestead or acquire legitimately. That means that you, and no government acting on your behalf, have ANY right to control my private property in any way. In fact, it is unethical for you to attempt to interfere with my free exercise of my property rights.
130116-twitter1-2560_w2sfob.jpg
While many "freedom-loving" Americans seem to think that their rights come from the Constitution, sadly, this is a measure of just how deeply ingrained this propaganda is. Your rights are inherent to your humanity. They are not granted privileges from any external authority. Part of the danger of thinking that your rights come from authority is that they can be taken away by that authority. Some will say, "My rights are granted by God, but protected by the Constitution." Really? They are? How's that working out for you? Even the acceptance of the idea that your rights can be parted out into separate components leads to the danger of them being taken away one at a time. And of course, any honest student of the Constitution knows that it's premised on authority being able to violate your property rights. It authorizes theft in the form of taxation after all.
americanirony.uswp-contentuploads201510gun-free-zone-thumb-4adfc6cadaf485f12a4aa62be0409a2e29f5c8e0.jpg
If a libertarian is someone who believes in ethics and the nonaggression principle, than it should be obvious that the correct position on guns is not pro-gun or anti-gun. Being pro-private property makes the whole debate irrelevant. In fact, being pro-private property will lead to "anti-gun" positions in some cases. If you own land and want to ban guns on your own land, that is your right. If you own a business and want to ban guns in your business, that is your right. If you want to form a community with private property where everyone contractually agrees to not have firearms, then that is your right as well. Yes, as a libertarian, I want you to be able to form a gun-free zone. I'll just never live there, and probably won't visit.
gun-free-cartoon-3.jpg
While those may be the obvious "anti-gun" libertarian positions, there is a bigger point to be made here in the debate on guns where the libertarian analysis is uniquely capable of maximizing VALUE for everyone. While I'm certainly pro-gun in the sense that it's part of your right to own property, in SOME WAYS, I'm actually anti-gun. In fact, everyone is. You want a gun pointed in your face right now?
pill_head_gun_control.jpg
Before I go any further, I have to display some "pro-gun" credentials here. I once loaded a shotgun for a YouTube video in civil disobedience two blocks away from the White House in the ironically named, "Freedom Plaza." As a result, my home was raided, a flash-bang grenade was thrown at my dog, three laser sights were pointed at my chest, and I ended up doing four months in jail. Until I became a convicted felon and the gun part of my property rights were taken away by threat of force, I always owned and responsibly carried guns. As a convicted felon in America, if I am found in possession of a firearm, I can be locked in a cage for up to ten years.
my-357-magnum-pistol-now-self-identifies-as-a-flower-so-you-must-accept-it-in-your-gun-free-zone-or-.jpg
I will never object to you owning whatever you can acquire ethically and doing whatever you want on your own property. With today's technology, carrying a gun is the most effective means of defense in some situations and we'd be safer overall if more people carried responsibly. To me, that means if you're going to carry a firearm for self-defense, it's irresponsible to not also be carrying pepper spray and/or a taser. You should have that ability to escalate without going straight to deadly force.
OJ80ypV.jpg
Carrying a gun means being ready to apply deadly force, but is that in line with maximizing value? What if we had the technology of Star Trek style phasers that could be "set to stun?" If you had a phaser, you could shoot someone in the pinky toe and disable them completely without damaging their body or taking their life. In terms of self-defense, this is actually MORE effective than a gun AND preserves the value of the persons life. You absolutely have the right to defend yourself as YOU SEE FIT when threatened with bodily harm, but the market will most certainly express a preference for preservation of value and when firearms are obsolete, I would not let you carry one on my property for self-defense. (Assuming government is gone by then, we can still go play with shotguns in my backyard!) In many cases of serious assault, the assailant is not in their right mind and may have been drugged or having a mental break down. If you are assaulted, wouldn't you want the assailant to be able to pay you restitution and make you whole?
trump anti gun tweet.png
The reason governments care so much about restricting "gun rights" and why it's so important to assert them, is that government wants to have a monopoly on violence. It is never a legitimate authority and so it must force itself on people. (Good ideas don't require force!) While asserting the right to own a gun is critically important right now, ultimately, it's another distraction issue that the powers that be use to keep us bickering and divided. Ultimately, asserting the universal right to self-ownership and property is much more important, and much more unifying. We cannot be distracted by such petty, misguided issues if we are going to unite left, right, and center against the common enemy of big, centralized government.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Gun community on steemit growing strong. Duh, because there are 100 million gun owners in the US. To indirectly quote the founders, we won't need the second amendment until they come for it. I love the sport of marksmanship and I try to explain my love of the sport as well as my belief in the basic human right of self defense to others. Thank goodness for the Heller case in 2008 which was an astonishing 5/4 SCOTUS decision. Its only a matter of time until the SCOTUS hears a case on semi-auto rifles and apply strict scrutiny to these BS AW bans. Scalia was a lion of a justice and the bench is sorely incomplete without him. I hope we can put in a few more good SCOTUS justices for our side. That will really help things for the long term. Hopefully all 50 states will become shall issue sooner than later.

·

I love this write up so much because it touches every thing we need to know about your opinion. I support the motive that we should be given the right to carry gun. Places like Nigeria need to sign this into law as well. If we are all Armed, those treatning our lives would find it so easy to do any more.

·

Instead of worrying about the Supreme Court, how about we just dissolve the entire federal government?

KokeshForPresident.com

#FinallyFreeAmerica

·
·
·

i'm new to Steemit community and happy to see so many intelligent, & supportive folks from the gun community here.

I've noticed being Libertarian makes you think in more philosophical ways. I'm much more calm now rather than all the sheep chasing headlines to tell them how to think/what to believe.

The issue is a huge one but you managed to summarize it nicely here Adam. Thanks for talking about rights, Liberty, and related topics. So many people are afraid to speak about such things nowadays, which is really sad. We need more educated activists pushing back against tyranny.
We the people must be able to dismantle our government if it becomes corrupt or acts against us. That time has definitely come! It's sad to see Americans begging their government to take away their weapons.

Really thorough and thought-provoking examination of the issue with some great visuals to reinforce your key points.
I appreciate your idea that people if people are going to carry a gun, they should also have other self-defense tools on them to use as their first line of defense. It's absurd (like so many other parts of the discussion, or lack there of) that this line of reasoning is not advocated by more people / organizations who push for greater levels of gun ownership in society.
My main take away is "Your rights are inherent to your humanity. They are not granted privileges from any external authority." -wise words to live by.
Thanks Adam.

You packed a lot of good information in such a few paragraphs. You keep talking like that and we wont't have a president soon.

·

That's the idea! No one should be President ever again!

KokeshForPresident.com

#FinallyFreeAmerica

·
·

Adam, gun-free zones make it easier for law enforcement to enforce the law. They're like presidencies, Think of it as centralizing authority so that way there's only one point of failure... oh wait, centralization is bad and his name is Scot Peterson. Keep up the good fight, @adamkokesh.

·
·
·

You had me for a moment...

Obviously, this post is the most educative value.Gun is not the solution.Only education can gain our success.Thanks a lot for this great article.
@resteem & follow done.

I have rights dammit. I have lefts, and ups and downs good, evil and everything in between.... Why are people only concerned about rights?
It's just not right, we should all do the right thing. I'm right, right? It's better to be right than.. Left? Keep to the right. Turn right.. Riiiight? You are just racist against rights.

All this bullshit of rights is not right it's just plain wrong and only serves to separate us even further.

The problem is, has been, and will continue to be...

  • If someone has cancer, we will go to the end of the earth to try to cure them.

  • But if someone has an illness of the brain, their illness will be ignored & untreateduntil they hurt others.

If we ban guns, the mentally ill will use just hijack planes and fly them into...oh wait.

Mental illness is a real problem, I just hope we stop being so arrogant and admit we just don't know how the brain works, only then we can begin to heal.

I hope everyone stays safe out there in this crazy world. Protect your selves and your family, because the government will and can only send their thoughts and prayers.

none of our other rights will mean shit and you will never achieve any sort of anarchist utopia anywhere on earth if the American citizenry is disarmed, this is the civil rights issue of our age.

·

Not true. We can withdraw or consent peacefully and still get government localized. In fact, peaceful revolutions are more successful than violent ones.

·
·

Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who do not.

Great article. Isn't it surprising that people jump to what was used to harm people but not the WHY was it used? People need to focus more on why these people want to attack people with whatever weapon they choose over the actual weapon itself. If guns get banned, those people will just find another way to harm people. A staple gun perhaps?

Great post! Thank you :)

OK first of all I am not from the US, but in my country we do have a lot of weapons, all kinds, I don't own one because I don't think I can use one safely so I don't want to be a peril to anyone else, same reason I don't drive a car. I think mental checks to be able to buy a gun are reasonable nobody wants someone who is certifiably insane to walk around with a weapon. If you can use a gun responsibly I see no reason for you not to have one. I do have one thing to point out though, most Americans who are pro gun think that by just having a weapon they are safe guarding their freedoms, I wonder if they will be able to use said weapons once the shit hits the fan, we have a saying in Spanish which says- No es lo mismo verla venir que platicar con ella- which is more or less- It's not the same to see her coming than to speak with her.
Also I want to point out this raising the age to own a weapon to 21 years is kind of dumb, I see no benefit in this, so a potential murderer just has to wait a couple of more years to do his thing, apart from the fact he can probably buy a gun in the underground markets.

·

Many times that "mental health" idea becomes an excuse to ban guns from people that you disagree with politicially or religiously.

·
·

No I'm talking about someone who is completely nuts.

To understand gun violence, the key is not to understand guns. It is to understand violence. What are the conditions under which people feel the need to use violence? In the United States, people pray at the altar​ of the most violent force in the history of the world. Citizens have been conditioned to be accepting of violence.

It really saddens me that the issues regarding the violent environment in the U.S. are attributed to guns. To stop violence, create environments of love.

Keep up the good work Adam!

OMG this is brilliant! Thank you 🙏

Thank you for sharing this. I am so frustrated at friends who are in the mindset that we all live in a peaceful and loving world, one that does not need machine guns at home. They are totally brainwashed into thinking the world is a friendly place that can depend on the protection of our government.

Great post my friend, specially the part where you said that government wants monopoly of violence... people in Venezuela can relate to that...
Always about control

A brilliant article. Well, whichever way it goes people will always have their say. Though there won't be any outright winner in the end.

Either you're free or not. Rights is a term we use for different freedoms but really if something is a right it just means the state sees as something they can control, give or take away from individuals.

thank you for talking about rights, liberty, and related topics.
very sit looking for activists who care and talk about this on earth.
I and my friends here (Aceh) will continue to fight for the rights and freedoms of upholding democracy.

Hey cool, the right to bear phasers.. Totally agree that the 2nd amendment is redundant if we enforce property (and privacy) rights. I especially like the argument that we cant be made whole for an assault, where the assailant is killed.

You go Adam! I am feeling you on your libertarian position; its just not needed if we have our human rights, because weapons are subsumed under those rights. I want all my rights not a few amended and bought ones.

I waited 8 days for my Steemit account to be approved. This was the first post I saw and it made the wait worth every minute. Thank you Adam

They got rid of the long rifle registry in Canada for now. I hate how difficult it is for me to own a handgun though. I imagine it's a somewhat similar process to getting an automatic firearms licence in the USA. It's stupid.

Not only is this the most ethical way of handling the debate it also lines up most with how most of the founders invisioned the defence of the country. Natural rights such as the right of self defence are supposed to be obvious.

Everybody should resteem this!

I really like your posts,
I support it

@adamkokesh