Libertarian Home

Blog archive from the golden age of London libertarianism

Dose of Liberty Ep 04 – Guns and Activism

tamloureiro

The podcast brings Jordan Lee, Tammy, Bruno and Libertarian Home founder Simon Gibbs, discussing the very current topic of Gun Rights, given the recent mass shooting in Parkland Florida, and debating different aspects of self-defence, statistics related to guns and implications of stricter laws. Private VS Public Schools stats also come into discussion, is the schooling system failing students ?

In the second part of the podcast, the Libertarian movement in the UK is brought into focus with ideas and suggestions on how to improve the visibility, cohesion and size of the British pro-freedom advocacy group.

Suggestions and questions for the next Podcasts are welcome! Please share and follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

Tags:

Date:

Up next:

Before:

8 responses to “Dose of Liberty Ep 04 – Guns and Activism”

  1. Paul Marks Avatar
    Paul Marks

    There is indeed no evidence that gun control regulations reduce the murder rate – London had a vastly lower murder rate than American cities when there were no gun control laws in London and firearms were very common.

    “That was long ago Paul” – very well then, when Switzerland introduced some gun control regulations in 1999 the murder rate went up (not down), is 1999 “long ago”?

    Towns on the Texas-Mexican border (equally hispanic on both sides of the border) have a vastly HIGHER murder rate on the gun control Mexican side of town.

    The whole gun control argument is based upon an absurdity – the absurdity that murderers will respect gun control regulations. Why should they?

    Like

    Reply
    1. Jordan Lee Avatar
      Jordan Lee

      Agreed, the culture and social forces of the area matters much more than the structure of its firearms regulations.

      Firearm-related murders are going down in the USA, but school shootings are going up, counterintuitive as that sounds. Which skews people’s perspective.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Paul Marks Avatar
        Paul Marks

        Agreed Jordan.

        And American government schools are intellectual and moral wastelands. The products of broken families are not offered anything of moral value – they are given powerful chemicals instead. Chemicals that keep the boys (it normally is boys) quiet for a while – but then send them mad.

        Being a boy is not a crime – and should not be punished with powerful medical drugs to make the boys “behave”, drugs that eventually send the boys insane.

        Instead schools should seek to inspire young men with intellectual and moral challenge – but these vile places never do that.

        Like

  2. Simon Gibbs Avatar
    Simon Gibbs

    I would like to say that for my part the “swipe” at advocates of Basic Income’s was not intended as a swipe or directed at anyone in particular. It is a shame that it was taken as a swipe by the hosts and I am not certain who they meant. There are, unfortunately, many advocates of tax payer provided universal incomes and the scheme takes on many names.

    I dislike all schemes that feature tax payer funding or universality. Tax payer funding is a simple rights violation, universality (i.e. payment to anyone living in the relevant jurisdiction) is a cultural dead end and a strategic defeat. Advocates of these ideas are making an error.

    It is not personal, the the ideas are horrible and I am happy to play the ball and not the man. Sorry to mix sporting analogies but this ball needs kicking into touch.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Ken Ferguson Avatar
      Ken Ferguson

      Hi Simon

      Tax payer funding is a simple rights violation

      Surely no libertarian would disagree with that.

      universality is a cultural dead end and a strategic defeat.

      We currently have state spending as a proportion of GDP approaching 50%- we are not winning the battle!!! You say yourself in the podcast that we need to adopt transitional policies that will move society to become more libertarian and that is where CBI comes in.

      The argument is not that it is a desired objective but that it is less wasteful, bureaucratic and intrusive (in terms of means testing etc) than the welfare system we currently endure. Given that there is no immediate or foreseeable prospect of a democratic or political consensus for a policy that would entirely remove the financial safety net provided by the state, it is a useful transitional step.

      I know you will argue that the universality of CBI makes it less libertarian than what we have now but I don’t agree. Breaking the poisonous link between the state providing for its citizens according to their need is a much greater win.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Simon Gibbs Avatar
        Simon Gibbs

        The goal isn’t to “entirely remove the financial safety net” but to ensure there is no safety net that is state funded.

        Why do you think CBI is a better policy than nudging people into non-state funded arrangements?

        Search this website for “nudge”

        Like

      2. Paul Marks Avatar
        Paul Marks

        Simon Gibbs – the “basic income for all” idea is based upon a lie. The lie being that other government programs would be abolished to pay for it. They would not be abolished – the free healthcare, the free education (and so on) would not be abolished. The “basic income for all” would be ON TOP OF not INSTEAD OF the existing Welfare State.

        Like

      3. Paul Marks Avatar
        Paul Marks

        Ken Ferguson – government spending is indeed very high, so how is making it EVEN HIGHER a good idea?

        “Ah but we would get rid of other things in other to pay for the basic income for all.”

        Oh yes? What? The free health care? The free education? The Housing Benefit?” No, no and no.

        We have known for many decades (since President Nixon proposed his Orwellian named “family assistance plan”) that the basic income would be ON TOP OF the rest of the Welfare State – not instead of it.

        And there is something that I had hoped had been understood since the 1990s – government must NOT pay able bodies people of working age money for NO WORK.

        The “basic income for all” idea runs AGAINST we have learned about welfare reform. The basic point of Welfare Reform, which started in Wisconsin, was to get away from paying people money for no work.

        Like

Leave a reply to Jordan Lee Cancel reply