Equality. Fraternity. Crime.

While there are exceptions to every rule, the typical gun control advocate leans significantly to the left, supporting feminism, welfare, and the like, and generally pushing equality as the highest principle of a civilized society. This typical supporter of gun control does not realize it, but he or she is actually tearing down that central principle of equality in their support for the restriction of firearms.

Take feminism for an example. No matter the cries of the ardent feminists of today, men are physically stronger than women. If a man assaults a woman without a firearm, the terms are decidedly unequal in 9 out of 10 situations. Even if the woman does have a weaker weapon such as pepper spray or a knife, the physical superiority of the man will likely allow him to prevail. Now let firearms enter the picture. If the woman has a firearm and the basic knowledge of its use, no physical strength on the part of the attacker can allow him to somehow dodge the bullets or withstand a hit. Even if both the woman and the man have firearms, the terms are much more even in the situation. The man's advantage in strength will now play no role in the conflict, only shooting skill, and shooting skill is not naturally inclined to favor either sex.

As another example, think of the elderly. The elderly are often incapable of adequately defending themselves without some sort of advantage on their side; the possession of a firearm can clearly mean the difference between life and death. This argument works for the very young as well. While youth possession of firearms is often debated, no one can deny that a responsible young person who is trained in gun usage has a much greater advantage in a situation such as a home invasion than one who hasn't. Once again, guns become the great equalizer for those weaker individuals who are forced to defend themselves.

Now try support for the poor. Leftists decry the possession of firearms as dangerous to the low-income, inner-city residents, but the opposite is actually true. Firearms are a means for the poor to defend themselves against the elite. While there may be varying degrees of quality of firearms, a bullet is a bullet, is a bullet. The damage a cheap, Saturday-special handgun does is just as real as the damage a military-grade weapon does. Making firearms unavailable to the poor by enacting stringent regulations or taxes on their production, sale, or possession means higher crime rates in low-income areas, yet again defiling the social liberal's dream of equality.

Firearms are not some exclusively dangerous hazard to society. Rather, they are a tool that when used unwisely can result in great harm, but when used responsibly can and will bring far greater benefit than cost. Getting rid of them would set society back from decades or even centuries of progress, and would destroy the very principles that their detractors hold so dear.

Rent Control/Life Control (Choose Any Two)

Officials often impose rent control in one form or another at the behest of cries against the "evil capitalists" or "idle, rich landlords". The ostensible purpose of these rent controls is to bring down rent prices, thereby making housing affordable for the working class. However, a close inspection of the issue reveals two main arguments against the imposition of rent control: practical and moral.

Practically speaking, rent control actually works to harm everyone involved in the business of housing, and that includes the low-income tenants it is supposed to help. If rent control is enacted, there are several unintended consequences that may result.

First, rent control may drive landlords out of the housing market. According to the laws of supply and demand, a price ceiling will drive supply down and demand up. This will mean an excess of demand within the housing market and therefore mean a larger proportion of the low-income population becoming homeless. In an attempt to help low-income people obtain places to live, the officials who impose rent control do away with the possibility of simply a slightly more expensive dwelling and end up with no possibilities at all.

In addition to this, the quality of apartments that are available is driven down because the amount of demand means that landlords are able to pick and choose tenants based on how bad of living conditions they are willing to endure. Because rent control destroys the landlord's ability to reap the benefits of a higher-yield investment, the landlord then has no incentive to maintain the property he rents out to as high a standard as he would without controls. What would have been higher-quality housing is now deteriorating and dilapidated, once again hurting those the rent control was intended to help. To add insult to injury, regulation on the quality of housing may be initiated in addition to the rent control once the above situation takes place, and that will mean higher costs of maintenance with lower results. These regulations, in conjunction with rent controls, drive out more suppliers and aggravate the problem.

In another possibility, the landlord may decide to sell his property instead of renting it. Rent control is often enacted under the assumption that landlords do not work for the rent they collect, which is the truth, but not the whole truth. The whole truth is that the landlord, by renting out his property, has chosen to forgo a low payoff now in favor of a much higher overall payoff down the road. If rent control is enacted, the landlord may decide that the payoff later on is enough to justify the wait. Then the property is sold instead of rented out, and because most low-income tenants rent specifically because they cannot afford to buy, they are either left without a place to live or with a place of much lower quality than they would originally be able to afford.

In addition to the practical concerns raised by rent control, there are also significant moral questions to ask when advocating rent control. The foundation of a free and just society is based on the security of one's life, liberty, and property; these being individual rights and not collective rights, no one, even by majority vote, has a right to take these away. However, that is exactly what rent control does. Rent control takes away a landlord's liberty to do what he pleases with his property, for if someone else can tell a property owner what he can or cannot do with that property, is it really his? Therefore, as rent control takes away the landlord's rights of liberty and property, it can within reason be considered slavery and theft. If a person changes his path in life because he does not want to be involved in slavery and theft in the housing market, then rent control further leads to control of one's life, completing the circle of the violation of rights.

Rent control is impractical and immoral. It harms everyone involved with the process of providing housing, including the people it is supposed to help. A true advocate of economic prosperity and freedom should therefore argue forcefully against the destructive and unethical burden of rent control.

Liberty Links, 10/16/09

Links from the past week.

10/9

Future of Freedom Foundation: Eight Years of Big Lies on Afghanistan
LewRockwell: Rich Uncle Pays your Mortgage
LewRockwell: Free the Clogged-Nose 25!
LewRockwell: A Demon in Need of Exorcism
LewRockwell: Are We the Martians of the 21st Century?
Reason: The Madness of the Mandate

10/10

Campaign for Liberty: Obama Deserved It
LewRockwell: Obamageddon
Reason: Why Ayn Rand is Hot Again

10/11

LewRockwell: Warmonger Wins Peace Prize

10/12

Future of Freedom Foundation: Obama's Tax on the Middle Class
LewRockwell: When War Becomes Peace, When the Lie Becomes the Truth
LewRockwell: Refuting Keynes
Mises: Tire Trade Tirade
Mises: You and the State

10/13

LewRockwell: Jim Rogers on the Next 10 Years
LewRockwell: Rush is Wrong
LewRockwell: The Empire is Going Down
Reason: Private Developers Have No Right to My Home

10/14

Campaign for Liberty: These Are Not Negotiable
Independent Institute: Partisan Politics--A Fool's Game for the Masses
LewRockwell: Warren Harding and the Forgotten Depression of 1920
LewRockwell: Perpetual War is Here
LewRockwell: Saving Face in Afghanistan
LewRockwell: Here Are Some Answers
Mises: Corporatist Pigs!
TakiMag: Israel's--and Only Israel's--Right to Self-Defense

10/15

Independent Institute: Diagnostics and Therapeutics in Political Economy
Campaign for Liberty: A Nobel Prize We Can Cheer
LewRockwell: What Happened to "Global Warming"?
Mises: The Illusion of Living Wage Laws

10/16

Campaign for Liberty: The Imperial Presidency Marches On
LewRockwell: Happy Days Are Here Again
LewRockwell: Tax Evaders Face Choice
Mises: The Death of Politics
TakiMag: Ignorance is Bliss

In Any Country

Gustave Gilbert was a German-speaking psychologist who was allowed to speak with Nazi war criminal Hermann Goering after the Allied victory. While the following comments were not recorded in the Nuremberg Trials, Gilbert kept a journal of them and released them as the book "Nuremberg Diary".

We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a parliament or a communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for their lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

The Paradox of Thrift

There is an apparent weakness within free-market economics that is often referred to by Keynesians, socialists, and the occasional Chicago-schooler as the Paradox of Thrift. The paradox is as follows: during a recession consumers naturally tighten their belts and start saving more money. Because consumers are not spending as much, producers cannot sell as much and start losing money. Because supply then goes down, prices go up, and consumers spend even less, sending the economy into a steep downward spiral.

The paradox of thrift appears convincing, but it ignores one key fact: before something can be consumed, it must be produced, and before something can be produced, it must be invested in. Before a house can be bought, someone must cut the lumber, manufacture the nails and drywall and other materials, and finally put it all together. And even before that, because that house is a large project, someone--a banker, investor, or entrepeneur--must invest a large amount of capital into it. How is that capital accumulated? By saving, plain and simple.

This is because saving, contrary to those who believe in the paradox of thrift, is not the choice to not spend. Rather, it is the choice to spend later on something that's worth that spending instead of spending now on something that's not. When consumer spending is encouraged rather than saving, money is spent on thing that are not necessarily beneficial to the economy; things that don't dramatically help productivity or increase the standard of living.

And what is the best way to encourage saving? The free market.

As noted before, people and businesses alike naturally start saving more. If the government intervenes to increase consumer demand, the process is the reverse of what is necessary for a healthy economy. People will experience a short-term economic boom because they will simply be buying more things, but because there is no supply to feed the demand, the economy will run itself into the ground in short order and wind up in a state far worse than it was in originally.

Natural, market-driven saving is the only way for an economy to get on its feet. Once saving is up, production can increase again, and consumers will be able to both buy more and save even more, continually growing the economy. Attempts to shortcut this cycle can only lead to disaster.

A Libertarian Argument on Abortion

Libertarianism is based on the principle of non-aggression: no man or institution, including the government, may initiate force against another man or institution. This solid principle leads to a clear-cut set of positions for libertarians: no wars of aggression, no wealth redistribution, no substance control, and no trade restrictions, among other things.

This principle is applied to abortion by nearly every libertarian, but it is applied in different ways within the libertarian movement. One position believes that a fetus is either not alive or is committing an act of aggression against its mother, and thus that the mother is justified in using force against it. The other position believes that a fetus is alive and commits no aggression against the mother, and thus that the abortion of the fetus in the initiation of force against it. There are intermediate positions, mostly believing that abortion is largely immoral but allowing for it in extreme cases such as rape, incest, or medical emergency. However, for the purpose of this article, the two most extreme positions of allowing either for complete abortion rights (pro-choice) or the complete outlawing of abortion (pro-life) will be considered.

The pro-choice position commonly asserts that the fetus is not alive, and therefore its termination is not the same thing as killing. "Biology: Life on Earth, Sixth Edition", a high-school biology textbook from Prentice Hall, uses seven criteria to determine whether or not something is alive.

1. Living things have a complex, organized structure that consists largely of organic molecules.
2. Living things respond to stimuli from their environment.
3. Living things actively maintain their complex structure and their internal environment, a process called homeostasis.
4. Living things acquire and use materials and energy from their environment and convert them into different forms.
5. Living things grow.
6. Living things reproduce themselves, using a molecular blueprint called DNA.
7. Living things, as a whole, have the capacity to evolve.

These criteria will be addressed one-by-one to determine whether or not a fetus is alive.

1. The fetus is composed of the same cellular structure as an adult human. Even if the fetus is mere cells in size, those cells are complex enough and organized enough by themselves to meet the criteria of "organized and complex". Organic molecules make up the vast majority of the content of a fetus.
2. Fetuses are well-known to react to outside stimuli. Fetuses react to loud sounds played too near to the womb, to physical activity of the mother, and indeed from the saline solutions and cutting tools often used in abortion procedures.
3. As noted before, fetuses have the same cellular structure as adult humans and, if provided resources, will maintain that cellular structure without outside interference.
4. A fetus may not be able to actively take resources, but is most definitely able to acquire resources from its mother and use and adapt those resources.
5. The whole purpose of pregancy is to allow the fetus to grow.
6. The criterion of reproduction applies to the species as a whole, not to any one member of that species.
7. Once again, this criterion applies to the species as a whole. If one believes in evolution, then they will no doubt agree that humanity as a species evolves. In one does not believe in evolution, this criterion is irrelevant and can essentially be crossed off the list.

Clearly, the fetus is alive according to widespread scientific standards. But what if the fetus is not human? Then the killing of the fetus will have no greater significance than the killing of a plant or an animal. However, the question that must be asked is, "If the fetus is not human, what is it?" The fetus has human DNA, DNA that will allow it to reproduce later in life. The fetus is not a chimpanzee or a dog or any other animal, and it is most definitely not a plant.

So the question is settled then; a fetus is alive and human. But the fetus may simply be a piece of tissue in its mother's womb. This is not the case, however; a fetus has different genetic material than its mother and is only dependent on its mother for resources and protection, not for any other reason, showing that that the fetus is in fact an independent life form.

The fetus is therefore alive, human, and independent. Its termination would be the same as killing a human. What other defenses of abortion are there, then? The only other such defense is that the fetus somehow committed an act of aggression against its mother. But in no circumstance is this the case. Assuming consensual sex, the mother had sex with the full knowledge that pregnancy could result, sex being shorthand for sexual reproduction, after all. The principle of contract law, one of the foundations of libertarian justice, demands that because the mother has engaged in an act created, whether by nature or by God, she is obligated to follow through on the caretaking of a child.

Assuming non-consensual sex, the situation does become more confusing but not incomprehensible. Imagine a woman who becomes pregnant as a result of a rape. This woman is the victim of an unbelievably unjust, violent, and immoral act. Some would say that the woman has the right to abort the child because the pregnancy was created against her will, or the pregnancy will be a reminder of the terrible ordeal she has already endured. However, the baby has done nothing against the mother, the rapist has.

Consider this analogy: there are three countries: A, B, and C. A attacks B. B retaliates against A, but in the process must attack and completely destroy C. According to the principle of non-aggression, this is unjustifiable. C has done nothing against B, so B's treatment of C is the initiation of force and therefore immoral. Why, then, should a mother have the moral right to kill a child that has resulted from rape, especially since the act of abortion does nothing to punish or obtain payment from the criminal in the first place? At least in the analogy, B is able to say that the destruction of C is for the purpose of punishing A. But the pro-choice position has no such excuse. The fetus has committed no act of aggression against the mother, so the abortion is the initiation of force and therefore immoral.

Because the fetus is alive, human, independent, and innocent of any initiation of force, the use of abortion is tantamount to murder. This act of aggression should be immoral in the eyes of a libertarian, a member of a political ideology more driven by unshakable morals than any other.

So I have to ask: what's the holdup, libertarians?

Taxation or Spending?

Every day, thousands of conservatives think back on the man named Ronald Reagan, the one who brought back traditional values, toppled the evil empire, and above all, lowered taxes...and smile fondly at the memory. The first two points may be written on in later articles, but I have some serious issues with the third point. Let me explain.

Aside from the fact that Reagan didn't actually cut taxes, the main problem with this hero-worship is that it ignores Reagan's spending policies, a problem common among conservatives. Ronald Reagan left office having incurred the largest federal debt the United States had ever seen. Yet this clear clash with traditional "fiscal conservatism" is routinely ignored or downplayed by conservatives. Why?

The answer lies in the new breed of fiscal conservatism that has been growing for several decades. This new species of economic thought considers budget deficits trivial compared to tax levels. A government can, according to this philosophy, spend itself into debt as long as taxes are low and still consider itself a "small government", because the measure of a government's size is not what it gives out in the form of spending but what it takes in from taxation.

This view ignores one crucial fact, however. Every dollar a government spends must be paid for in some way, either in the present or in the future. If the government opts not to pay now through taxation, it must borrow the money and pay later. This debt can be handled in one of three ways: taxation, inflation, or inaction. If the government chooses to pay the debt through taxation, then the spending has consequences that included higher taxes anyway. What was the point of the deficit spending if not to simply push the payment for it back by several years? If the government chooses to pay the debt by inflation, no money is directly taken from any taxpayers, but the value of the money they possess is decreased, making inflation at least equivalent in cost to taxation for all practical purposes. If the government decides to not pay the debt at all, investors' willingness to invest in that country decreases, thereby leading to the same consequence as inflation: a devalued currency.

Add to these facts the issue of interest on the debt, and suddenly deficit spending does not appear so attractive. Every time a government attempt to spend without paying for it, the payment later on in the future will inevitably be greater. The simple solution is to either cut spending or raise taxes to meet that spending; the long-term economic pain will be much, much less.

P.S. Yes, I did use an article from Paul Krugman