Sacrificing Property Rights on the Altar of Gun Rights

[Libertarian666]

Remember, I don't agree that the government should be permitted to do anything.
However, so long as it is granting market-distorting benefits, it not only can but MUST apply rules to the recipients of those benefits. That is, the secondary interventions are an inevitable result of its first intervention.

That's one of the reasons I'm against government. It contaminates everything it touches, and the contamination gets worse the longer it is in effect.

I agree with you.

However, since government does exist, and does grant certain benefits to certain people, isn't this just an open-ended endorsement of basically any regulation that happens to touch anyone who's getting any benefit from government? Doesn't that describe all of us at some point in time? In terms of its practical output, how does this viewpoint differ from liberalism?

No, what I am saying is that as long as government is granting benefits, they will by logical necessity impose rules on those who get the benefits.

What alternative do you propose to this situation?

[Pointedstick]

However, since government does exist, and does grant certain benefits to certain people, isn't this just an open-ended endorsement of basically any regulation that happens to touch anyone who's getting any benefit from government? Doesn't that describe all of us at some point in time? In terms of its practical output, how does this viewpoint differ from liberalism?

Yes!

I never thought I'd be on a libertarian team-up with Pointed Stick against Libertarian666.  This is getting weird.

Heh, yeah.

However, I see what techno is saying. He's saying that once we have government favoritism, that inherently requires other laws to fix the problems caused by that favoritism, ad nauseam. However, in my way of looking at things, this is another way of acceding to regulations, wrapped up in a libertarian-flavored tortilla. I categorically reject the implied idea that we cannot incrementally roll back the state or resist its encroachment, and that the only true victory lies in obliterating it utterly.

What alternative do you propose to this situation?

I propose finding a different doctor if your current doctor is hostile to gun ownership and uses their position of authority to attack your decisions.

[Libertarian666]

However, since government does exist, and does grant certain benefits to certain people, isn't this just an open-ended endorsement of basically any regulation that happens to touch anyone who's getting any benefit from government? Doesn't that describe all of us at some point in time? In terms of its practical output, how does this viewpoint differ from liberalism?

Yes!

I never thought I'd be on a libertarian team-up with Pointed Stick against Libertarian666.  This is getting weird.

Heh, yeah.

However, I see what techno is saying. He's saying that once we have government favoritism, that inherently requires other laws to fix the problems caused by that favoritism, ad nauseam. However, in my way of looking at things, this is another way of acceding to regulations, wrapped up in a libertarian-flavored tortilla. I categorically reject the implied idea that we cannot incrementally roll back the state or resist its encroachment, and that the only true victory lies in obliterating it utterly.

What alternative do you propose to this situation?

I propose finding a different doctor if your current doctor is hostile to gun ownership and uses their position of authority to attack your decisions.

As long as I could do that, I would.

By the way, I am in favor of rolling back all government. Obviously that is unlikely to happen all at once, although I'd be happy if it did. However, rolling back government one piece at a time is also obviously going to cause difficulties, depending on what order things are rolled back in.

[moda0306]

I fully understand the concept of having counter-balances to government interference, and that even small-government types can see it as necessary to offset the most damaging market distortion of the first government interference.

For instance, if the government is going to guarantee balances at banks, it should have banking regs, reserve minimums, and an FDIC that they should have to pay into.

Totally makes sense.

But not letting doctors ask questions about guns at the home in a pediatric questionnaire because of the "oligopoly" (err... not really) created in the medical market by having licensure is so disconnected and asinine to me.  One has nothing to do with each other.  It's like saying "well, the government paid for your education, so they have the right to listen to your phone conversations, since your intelligence could be used to plan a terrorist attack."

Sorry, but this dog just don't hunt.

[TripleB]

What if the doctor asks whether you own guns, and you refuse to answer, and the doctor documents "patient refuses to answer."

Given the government already has or soon will have access to all electronic medical records, how hard would it be to run a query that says "show me a list of ALL patients WHERE Gun Ownership = Yes OR Gun Ownership = Refuse to Answer" and now we have a list of all gun owners in the country.

That you have no choice about because the government is mandating electronic medical record use so your choices are:

a) Never go to a doctor
b) Be on a list of gun owners the government has

This is why I'm against doctors asking the gun ownership question.

I'd also be against them asking what religion people are. How about a list of all Muslims queried from the national EMR database?

Our government has proven within the last century that it cannot be trusted to act responsibly. See Japanese internment camps.

[moda0306]

Umm how does one doctor asking a question equate to every doctor being REQUIRED to ask a question?

Totally garbage comparison.

The government is probably more danger to me by them knowing my address and bank account number than them knowing whether I own a gun.

But of course that would mean having a balanced perspective on what my rights are and how the government could violate them.

[Pointedstick]

Furthermore, the government already knows who the vast majority of the gun owners are via the form 4473 paperwork you fill out when buy buy a gun. Anyone who tells you those background check records are required by law to remain paper copies and aren't getting secretly scanned and entered into a database somewhere is living in la-la land. If you've ever bought even a single firearm at a gun store, the government knows you passed a background and most likely own at least one gun. Since more than 90% of gun purchases involve background checks at gun stores, and we've had background checks for 20 years, that's a pretty good set of information.

And yeah, they know your home address, the names of your spouse and children, your employer, your income, your bank account and brokerage account numbers, and can easily piece together what your assets consist of.

If the government wanted to outright oppress the more than 100 million gun owners who call themselves Americans, there's really nothing stopping them from trying. But then again, if we're that far along, there's nothing stopping us from resisting it and neighborhoods forming defensive militias, causing an outright civil war. But that's a very different United States of America we're talking about now--one that thankfully thus far only exists in people's imaginations.

[Libertarian666]

What if the doctor asks whether you own guns, and you refuse to answer, and the doctor documents "patient refuses to answer."

Given the government already has or soon will have access to all electronic medical records, how hard would it be to run a query that says "show me a list of ALL patients WHERE Gun Ownership = Yes OR Gun Ownership = Refuse to Answer" and now we have a list of all gun owners in the country.

That you have no choice about because the government is mandating electronic medical record use so your choices are:

a) Never go to a doctor
b) Be on a list of gun owners the government has

This is why I'm against doctors asking the gun ownership question.

I'd also be against them asking what religion people are. How about a list of all Muslims queried from the national EMR database?

Our government has proven within the last century that it cannot be trusted to act responsibly. See Japanese internment camps.

Now you're just being paranoid. We know the government would never put people in internment camps just for having a certain family background!

(Note:  )

[Pointedstick]

I would like to see them try to intern 100 million gun owners, especially with significant overlap between the targets and those who would presumably be charged with enforcing the order.

Confiscation, disarmament, and internment of gun owners at the federal level is dead. We should focus on the real threats, which IMHO are primarily cultural, e.g. hyper-liberal states' efforts to make gun ownership and use so burdensome and legally risky that it dies out over the generations, destroying the cultures of civilian hunting, marksmanship, and  self-defense.

[Pointedstick]

speaking of legally risky, Governor brown just signed a new bill allowing families to seek gun restraining order, ( AB1014.) its tough to say how it will be used or if it will have the intended benefit as written, but it could very easily put law-abiding gun owners in jeopardy.

Bingo. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Today's major gun rights fights are primarily in the statehouses of California, New York, Illinois, and New Jersey, not in Congress. Congress couldn't meaningfully pass even any any minor new gun control laws with years of a Democratic majority, several high-profile mass shootings, and the bankrolling of a billionaire. Worrying about them rounding us up into camps is IMHO unrealistic and distracts us from the real challenges.

[TripleB]

Umm how does one doctor asking a question equate to every doctor being REQUIRED to ask a question?

Totally garbage comparison.

It's a perfect comparison. Every year, additional reporting requirements increase for medical professionals. If you go to the emergency room for a broken leg, they will ask if you are feeling or have ever felt suicidal ideations. They will ask about sepsis risks, and several other things that have absolutely nothing to do with the reason you went to the ER.

Why?

Because the government requires them to ask those questions.

First, we let doctors ask the question about gun ownership.

Then, we encourage it.

Eventually, the government mandates it.

If the ER doesn't ask about suicidal ideations when you came in with a a stubbed toe, and 5 years later you kill yourself after your wife cheats on you and you lose your job and are diagnosed with terminal cancer in one day, that ER is liable if they "neglected" to ask about SI. This is current fact.

The time could easily come soon when if the ER neglects to ask about gun ownership, and you use a gun criminally, the ER is criminally liable for not asking. Easily within 5 years, without sufficient pushback from the NRA. Don't think the Liberals don't want to have it be a mandatory question which you could refuse to answer of course, which de facto means you are not only a gun owner, but also one of the "crazy" ones who won't answer the question. Because every non-gun owner will answer "no".

[moda0306]

Am I missing something? 

Is the government actually REQUIRING that these questions be asked?  Of course the government "might someday," but that could apply to ANYTHING that is currently protected speech by the private sector.

Further, there currently, as far as I know, no requirement that people be 100% honest in answering these questions. 


I think what we're seeing here is that anarchists & libertarians just simply are not able to resist trying to control others at the point of a gun, just like liberal nanny-statists.  We've got TB and tech both advocating that the federal government effectively hold guns to doctors heads forcing them to either not ask questions, or to work with someone they don't want to based on their unwillingness to answer.

Patient Kettle, meet Dr. Pot.

[Pointedstick]

I think what we're seeing here is that anarchists & libertarians just simply are not able to resist trying to control others at the point of a gun, just like liberal nanny-statists.  We've got TB and tech both advocating that the federal government effectively hold guns to doctors heads forcing them to either not ask questions, or to work with someone they don't want to based on their unwillingness to answer.

Patient Kettle, meet Dr. Pot.

What especially surprises me is that this is based on the reasoning that if you have ever benefited from the government holding a gun to someone else's head, that the government can (and in certain circumstances, perhaps even should) hold a gun to your head. This is basically the core moral justification for liberalism, which simply wraps the concept in slightly different terminology like "making it fair," "leveling the paying field," "ending oppression," etc.

Not that there is anything cosmically wrong with this, of course, but it is certainly not any flavor of anarchism that makes sense to me. If you're a single-issue gun voter, maybe… but that is certainly NOT a synonym of libertarian or anarchist.

[Pointedstick]

Further, there currently, as far as I know, no requirement that people be 100% honest in answering these questions. 

Exactly. Why would anyone even bother to answer the question truthfully if it offended them?

Seriously. If you're so worried about "decline to answer" being interpreted as a yes, just say no. Problem solved.

[img width=200]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 198584.jpg[/img]

[Libertarian666]

I think what we're seeing here is that anarchists & libertarians just simply are not able to resist trying to control others at the point of a gun, just like liberal nanny-statists.  We've got TB and tech both advocating that the federal government effectively hold guns to doctors heads forcing them to either not ask questions, or to work with someone they don't want to based on their unwillingness to answer.

Patient Kettle, meet Dr. Pot.

What especially surprises me is that this is based on the reasoning that if you have ever benefited from the government holding a gun to someone else's head, that the government can (and in certain circumstances, perhaps even should) hold a gun to your head. This is basically the core moral justification for liberalism, which simply wraps the concept in slightly different terminology like "making it fair," "leveling the paying field," "ending oppression," etc.

Not that there is anything cosmically wrong with this, of course, but it is certainly not any flavor of anarchism that makes sense to me. If you're a single-issue gun voter, maybe… but that is certainly NOT a synonym of libertarian or anarchist.

It would be nice if you actually represented my opinion accurately.

My opinion on this matter, again, is that:

People who benefit from a government-enforced monopoly effectively preventing competition from unlicensed providers in their occupational field have very little standing to complain about government regulation of their behavior in that field.

I would hope than reasonable people could distinguish between that statement and your supposed paraphrase: "if you have ever benefited from the government holding a gun to someone else's head, that the government can (and in certain circumstances, perhaps even should) hold a gun to your head."

But maybe I'm just too optimistic. 

[moda0306]

I think what we're seeing here is that anarchists & libertarians just simply are not able to resist trying to control others at the point of a gun, just like liberal nanny-statists.  We've got TB and tech both advocating that the federal government effectively hold guns to doctors heads forcing them to either not ask questions, or to work with someone they don't want to based on their unwillingness to answer.

Patient Kettle, meet Dr. Pot.

What especially surprises me is that this is based on the reasoning that if you have ever benefited from the government holding a gun to someone else's head, that the government can (and in certain circumstances, perhaps even should) hold a gun to your head. This is basically the core moral justification for liberalism, which simply wraps the concept in slightly different terminology like "making it fair," "leveling the paying field," "ending oppression," etc.

Not that there is anything cosmically wrong with this, of course, but it is certainly not any flavor of anarchism that makes sense to me. If you're a single-issue gun voter, maybe… but that is certainly NOT a synonym of libertarian or anarchist.

It would be nice if you actually represented my opinion accurately.

My opinion on this matter, again, is that:

People who benefit from a government-enforced monopoly effectively preventing competition from unlicensed providers in their occupational field have very little standing to complain about government regulation of their behavior in that field.

I would hope than reasonable people could distinguish between that statement and your supposed paraphrase: "if you have ever benefited from the government holding a gun to someone else's head, that the government can (and in certain circumstances, perhaps even should) hold a gun to your head."

But maybe I'm just too optimistic. 

It's not a monopoly.  It's not even really an oligopoly.  There are tons of healthcare providers out there, large and small.

[Libertarian666]

What especially surprises me is that this is based on the reasoning that if you have ever benefited from the government holding a gun to someone else's head, that the government can (and in certain circumstances, perhaps even should) hold a gun to your head. This is basically the core moral justification for liberalism, which simply wraps the concept in slightly different terminology like "making it fair," "leveling the paying field," "ending oppression," etc.

Not that there is anything cosmically wrong with this, of course, but it is certainly not any flavor of anarchism that makes sense to me. If you're a single-issue gun voter, maybe… but that is certainly NOT a synonym of libertarian or anarchist.

It would be nice if you actually represented my opinion accurately.

My opinion on this matter, again, is that:

People who benefit from a government-enforced monopoly effectively preventing competition from unlicensed providers in their occupational field have very little standing to complain about government regulation of their behavior in that field.

I would hope than reasonable people could distinguish between that statement and your supposed paraphrase: "if you have ever benefited from the government holding a gun to someone else's head, that the government can (and in certain circumstances, perhaps even should) hold a gun to your head."

But maybe I'm just too optimistic. 

It's not a monopoly.  It's not even really an oligopoly.  There are tons of healthcare providers out there, large and small.

Call it whatever you want, but the medical licensing laws are a serious government restriction on everyone who is not in the club.

What can physicians do that others can't do?

I can think of two main privileges they have that are denied to those who are not physicians.

1. Prescribe medications. This is probably the main one, since these days almost any serious health condition can be treated much better with medications than without.
2. Perform surgery. I don't think this restricts competition too much actually. I don't know many people who would want to do surgery who aren't physicians, or many people who would want it performed on them by someone else either, for that matter. However, I may be wrong about this if the stories are true about medical device representatives knowing more about the devices they sell than the surgeons, and sometimes doing the surgery themselves.

To forestall obvious objections, I don't think that many people would want to be treated by a guy from "Joe's Plumbing and Medical Services" without a diploma from a medical school. But it should be the patient's choice.

The best solution to all of this is just to repeal the prescription laws and turn the FDA into an advisory service rather than as the gatekeeper of drugs. That would solve the problem without a lot of other complex changes.

[Pointedstick]

It would be nice if you actually represented my opinion accurately.

My opinion on this matter, again, is that:

People who benefit from a government-enforced monopoly effectively preventing competition from unlicensed providers in their occupational field have very little standing to complain about government regulation of their behavior in that field.

I'm sorry that I misrepresented your position. I see now that you were only talking about licensure concerning business and employment. However, despite its narrowing, I feel like the core of my point still stands. Because, for example, most state governments require people to acquire a license before owning any kind of business (let alone occupation-specific licenses such as those required for plumbers or doctors or big rig drivers). Given this, doesn't it follow that you would agree that business owners so licensed have very little standing to complain about government regulation of their business practices?

For example:
Joe Landscaper who runs a one-man landscaping business with an official government business license and DBA who pays and collects the required income and sales taxes. Joe benefits from the violence-enforced suppression of competition from landscapers who do it "on the side" and don't have a business license or charge their customers sales taxes (or likely pay any income taxes on their profit), right? So Joe has little standing to complain if an ABC government agency writes a regulation saying that landscapers can't use such-and-such herbicide or can only hire employees who are full American citizens, right?

[Libertarian666]

It would be nice if you actually represented my opinion accurately.

My opinion on this matter, again, is that:

People who benefit from a government-enforced monopoly effectively preventing competition from unlicensed providers in their occupational field have very little standing to complain about government regulation of their behavior in that field.

I'm sorry that I misrepresented your position. I see now that you were only talking about licensure concerning business and employment. However, despite its narrowing, I feel like the core of my point still stands. Because, for example, most state governments require people to acquire a license before owning any kind of business (let alone occupation-specific licenses such as those required for plumbers or doctors or big rig drivers). Given this, doesn't it follow that you would agree that business owners so licensed have very little standing to complain about government regulation of their business practices?

For example:
Joe Landscaper who runs a one-man landscaping business with an official government business license and DBA who pays and collects the required income and sales taxes. Joe benefits from the violence-enforced suppression of competition from landscapers who do it "on the side" and don't have a business license or charge their customers sales taxes (or likely pay any income taxes on their profit), right? So Joe has little standing to complain if an ABC government agency writes a regulation saying that landscapers can't use such-and-such herbicide or can only hire employees who are full American citizens, right?

Can anyone apply for that and receive that business license and pay those taxes?
For most occupations, the answer is "Yes". Therefore, the people who are in that status have no advantage over anyone else who wishes to do the same.

Medicine, law, and some other professions, are different in that there is restriction of supply enforced by the government.

Is it possible that you really can't see the difference between a medical license (or a law license) and a general business license that anyone can get if they want it?

If not, I give up.

[Xan]

Could you explain what that difference is rather than simply expressing incredulity that anyone could not already understand?

[Pointedstick]

Can anyone apply for that and receive that business license and pay those taxes?
For most occupations, the answer is "Yes". Therefore, the people who are in that status have no advantage over anyone else who wishes to do the same.

Medicine, law, and some other professions, are different in that there is restriction of supply enforced by the government.

Is it possible that you really can't see the difference between a medical license (or a law license) and a general business license that anyone can get if they want it?

If not, I give up.

I do see the difference, but to me, it appears to be a matter of degree rather than some kind of hard-and-fast line. Anyone can become a doctor or a lawyer or a plumber--they just have to jump through the training and qualification hoops set by the government or its designated monopoly agency. The restriction in supply for these fields comes from the difficulty in jumping through those hoops, but this just echoes the general trend of fewer people doing hard things. Those restrictions to me seem more natural than artificial; it's not like someone will pass the Bar exam only for the proctor to say, "well, you passed the test and you're fully qualified, but we don't need any more lawyers right now, so I'm failing you anyway."

Two of my close friends just became lawyers and didn't face any such arbitrary government restrictions. They went to law school, passed the Bar, and boom, now they're licensed to practice law. One is a criminal defense attorney sticking it to the man, and the other is a patent attorney. Were their journeys made more restrictive than they would have been in the absence of a requirement that they hold a government-granted credential and pass years of study that cost a lot of money? Yeah, a bit, I'm sure. But these are hard professions, and would be difficult to enter even in the absence of government regulations, in which case I think that the supply of people practicing them would still be reduced compared to the supply of pizza delivery drivers and movie theater ticket sellers.

[Libertarian666]

Can anyone apply for that and receive that business license and pay those taxes?
For most occupations, the answer is "Yes". Therefore, the people who are in that status have no advantage over anyone else who wishes to do the same.

Medicine, law, and some other professions, are different in that there is restriction of supply enforced by the government.

Is it possible that you really can't see the difference between a medical license (or a law license) and a general business license that anyone can get if they want it?

If not, I give up.

I do see the difference, but to me, it appears to be a matter of degree rather than some kind of hard-and-fast line. Anyone can become a doctor or a lawyer or a plumber--they just have to jump through the training and qualification hoops set by the government or its designated monopoly agency. The restriction in supply for these fields comes from the difficulty in jumping through those hoops, but this just echoes the general trend of fewer people doing hard things. Those restrictions to me seem more natural than artificial; it's not like someone will pass the Bar exam only for the proctor to say, "well, you passed the test and you're fully qualified, but we don't need any more lawyers right now, so I'm failing you anyway."

Two of my close friends just became lawyers and didn't face any such arbitrary government restrictions. They went to law school, passed the Bar, and boom, now they're licensed to practice law. One is a criminal defense attorney sticking it to the man, and the other is a patent attorney. Were their journeys made more restrictive than they would have been in the absence of a requirement that they hold a government-granted credential and pass years of study that cost a lot of money? Yeah, a bit, I'm sure. But these are hard professions, and would be difficult to enter even in the absence of government regulations, in which case I think that the supply of practicing them would still be reduced compared to the supply of pizza delivery drivers and movie theater ticket sellers.

It is NOT a matter of degree, but of kind.

I guess you don't know that YOU CANNOT TAKE THE BAR EXAM unless you have passed a course at a law school approved by an agency that is RUN BY LAWYERS!

And you CAN'T TAKE MEDICAL BOARDS unless you have passed a course at a medical school approved by an agency that is RUN BY DOCTORS!

And guess what? Those agencies LIMIT THE NUMBER OF PLACES in those schools, TO REDUCE COMPETITION!

I hope that helps, because if it doesn't, I'm out of options in explaining this to you.

[moda0306]

But there are all KINDS of ways where government gives special aid (and therefore bargaining power) to an industry or subset of people within its governance.  In fact, that is kind of all it does.  Why is a competition barrier such a unique aid?  It has a fair market value like anything else. 


But all in all, this still has nothing to do with doctors asking about home safety.  It's not the government making roads, and then making RULES of the road for the licensed monopolists that drive on them.  This is just a random preference of gun nuts.

[Pointedstick]

It is NOT a matter of degree, but of kind.

I guess you don't know that YOU CANNOT TAKE THE BAR EXAM unless you have passed a course at a law school approved by an agency that is RUN BY LAWYERS!

And you CAN'T TAKE MEDICAL BOARDS unless you have passed a course at a medical school approved by an agency that is RUN BY DOCTORS!

And guess what? Those agencies LIMIT THE NUMBER OF PLACES in those schools, TO REDUCE COMPETITION!

I hope that helps, because if it doesn't, I'm out of options in explaining this to you.

Okay, I think I get it. Your objection is that entry to the profession is gated by existing members of the profession through government and a complicated system of licensure and certification, and that absent this system, there would probably be more people in those professions, increasing the amount of market competition that would drive down their wages and prices for their services.

I guess my real problem is that I don't see how this is so specially unique in the world which is full of impediments, quotas, and barriers to entry. For example, there are a limited number of slots available for aspiring engineers in the nation's universities, ultimately set by the number of professors available to teach them. To the extent that becoming an engineer virtually requires at least bachelor's degree, this requirement represents a distortion in the labor market for engineers that probably pushes up our wages.

While it is true that this limitation was not set by a government-empowered engineers' union or something like that, it is still a limitation that causes fewer people to become engineers. To a certain extent, these kinds of "natural" barriers to entry are present everywhere. I guess I don't see what's so drastically different about the government-granted monopoly barrier you're objecting to that makes regulation of the profession acceptable.

[WildAboutHarry]

[quote=Pointedstick]While it is true that this limitation was not set by a government-empowered engineers' union or something like that, it is still a limitation that causes fewer people to become engineers. To a certain extent, these kinds of "natural" barriers to entry are present everywhere. I guess I don't see what's so drastically different about the government-granted monopoly barrier you're objecting to that makes regulation of the profession acceptable.[/quote]

There are real barriers to entry to a number of professions.  The main ones are the innate talent and intelligence necessary to master the discipline.  And of course the barriers applied by various professional organizations.

I would wager that there are far more people out there with the innate talent and intelligence to be doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. than our society has the ability to train and employ.  And I would also bet that we have the capacity to train far more doctors and (gasp) lawyers than our professional organizations would allow.

Government control of the supply of professional people has its basis in real catastrophe.  It only takes one Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire to spawn a whole bunch of industrial safety legislation, and only a few botched operations or mis-diagnosed illnesses to gin up public sentiment for laws regulating the training and licensing of doctors.