 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Berzerker
UR -
As long as government is in the business of "re-distributing" wealth, everything becomes a "social" cost to be avoided. |
Why do Libertarians have such simplistic analysises?
Gun ownership is a social cost because guns do damage to the society which will require a cost to repair. For example, if you kill somebody with a gun, there's a social cost right there. Now, before you use the slippery slope argument of banning rocks, consider the statistics.
quote: Originally posted by Berzerker
Sorry, but the social cost of guns is miniscule to poor diets, so I guess government should regulate what we eat too. Then we can make sure everyone gets the proper sleep and exercise to avoid other social costs. We'd end up with a system so authoritarian the communists would look upon us with envy, and we'd have that system while claiming to be free, heehee. |
Why did I have a sneaky suspicion that you will again resort to the slippery slope?
You can stop eating a poor diet, but you can't stop a bullet. In other words, a person has control over his own diet, but not on how other people use guns. That's why we need to control guns.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999 time: 23:26
|
|
UR - quote: Why do Libertarians have such simplistic analysises? |
You established a simple standard with your argument that guns are our business - the social cost. Did your argument become simplistic only after I explained why it's a blueprint for totalitariansim? 
quote: Gun ownership is a social cost because guns do damage to the society which will require a cost to repair. |
And that's true for all sorts of behaviors, including diet.
quote: For example, if you kill somebody with a gun, there's a social cost right there. Now, before you use the slippery slope argument of banning rocks, consider the statistics. |
Sure, compare the statistics. How many people die every year from tobacco, alcohol, and diabetes induced by poor diets? So, how many die from gunshot wounds after subtracting the people who would die from other means if guns were banned?
quote: Why did I have a sneaky suspicion that you will again resort to the slippery slope? |
What slippery slope? Are you suggesting we apply your standard inconsistently only to those social costs you want addressed?
quote: You can stop eating a poor diet, but you can't stop a bullet. In other words, a person has control over his own diet, but not on how other people use guns. That's why we need to control guns. |
But don't we end up paying the "social costs" of people with poor diets? It seems you're not really concerned with social costs, only gun violence. Therefore it is inconsistent to "control" guns because of social costs while ignoring all the other social costs.
Btw, Ramo, ain't Rachel True HOT? She's the chick Chappelle is dating in the movie.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26. Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|