I agree but I don't think he did a good job of explaining why. He said "Freedom is more important than our lives." But what good is freedom to someone who is dead? There's more nuance to this idea than Penn shared, unfortunately.
A funny note about the gun violence thing... there were no gun control laws back when this country was founded. Does that mean everyone was going around settling arguments with musket-volleys? I don't get that.
Penn makes a good point to say that even if net utility is greater with govt, he's still for freedom, because taking the opposite position presumes people are guilty by default. It's some odd neo-Original Sin idea that God-government must save us all from. Even if you would NEVER commit gun violence, you must be prevented, forcibly (with guns) from owning a gun because someone else might do so and we need to have a catch-all so we can get him, too. That's offensive to say that I can't be permitted to do as I like because someone else might abuse that 'privelege'.
Then there is the whole elitism thing, which is total and utter BS and people should and could reject government intervention on that ground as well (ignoring the economic and political arguments)... claiming that there is some group who CAN be trusted to have the monopoly on firearms, and that those people happen to be in govt, is a disgusting affront to logic and the value of the individual. It implies that some people are more valuable and 'better' than others.
I agree but I don't think he did a good job of explaining why. He said "Freedom is more important than our lives." But what good is freedom to someone who is dead? There's more nuance to this idea than Penn shared, unfortunately.
ReplyDeleteA funny note about the gun violence thing... there were no gun control laws back when this country was founded. Does that mean everyone was going around settling arguments with musket-volleys? I don't get that.
Penn makes a good point to say that even if net utility is greater with govt, he's still for freedom, because taking the opposite position presumes people are guilty by default. It's some odd neo-Original Sin idea that God-government must save us all from. Even if you would NEVER commit gun violence, you must be prevented, forcibly (with guns) from owning a gun because someone else might do so and we need to have a catch-all so we can get him, too. That's offensive to say that I can't be permitted to do as I like because someone else might abuse that 'privelege'.
Then there is the whole elitism thing, which is total and utter BS and people should and could reject government intervention on that ground as well (ignoring the economic and political arguments)... claiming that there is some group who CAN be trusted to have the monopoly on firearms, and that those people happen to be in govt, is a disgusting affront to logic and the value of the individual. It implies that some people are more valuable and 'better' than others.