Eric Holder Says Gun Owners Should “Cower” in Shame Like Smokers

Firearms, Nanny Statism, Police Statism
Share

The Attorney General’s exact words:

What we need to do is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that’s not cool, that it’s not acceptable, it’s not hip to carry a gun anymore, in the way in which we’ve changed our attitudes about cigarettes. You know, when I was growing up, people smoked all the time. Both my parents did. But over time, we changed the way that people thought about smoking, so now we have people who cower outside of buildings and kind of smoke in private and don’t want to admit it.

Cower in Fear
You’ve been a bad, bad… citizen.

Cower — interesting choice of words that. Cower is a word more associated with fear than shame in my mind. One cowers in fear. One blushes or hides out of shame.1

It’s a natural inclination in those with a love of power to want to see those beneath them cower. Our proper posture when faced with the disapproval of our betters is on bended knee, shoulders trembling, head bowed in anxious deference.

It’s also interesting that Holder suggests smokers “cower” outside of buildings, doing their nasty deed in private, on their own initiative. Silly me, I thought it was because government regulations and corporate policies require them to smoke only in designated areas outside. I doubt most such smokers feel any shame in the act, though they may huddle in winter.


  1. I suppose one can cower in shame as well, though surely not without some fear mixed in. 

Eric Holder Says Gun Owners Should “Cower” in Shame Like Smokers Read Post »

Hoppe on Treating Aggressors as Mere “Technical Problems”

Libertarian Theory
Share

I’ve always liked Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s observations regarding how we have to treat aggressors as technical, not ethical, problems. From The Economics and Ethics of Private Property (relevant parts bolded):

while scarcity is a necessary condition for the emergence of the problem of political philosophy, it is not sufficient. For obviously, we could have conflicts regarding the use of scarce resources with, let us say, an elephant or a mosquito, yet we would not consider it possible to resolve these conflicts by means of proposing property norms. In such cases, the avoidance of possible conflicts is merely a technological, not an ethical, problem. For it to become an ethical problem, it is also necessary that the conflicting actors be capable, in principle, of argumentation.

Whether or not persons have any rights and, if so, which ones, can only be decided in the course of argumentation (propositional exchange). Justification—proof, conjecture, refutation—is argumentative justification. Anyone who denied this proposition would become involved in a performative contradiction because his denial would itself constitute an argument. Even an ethical relativist must accept this first proposition, which has been referred to as the a priori of argumentation.

From the undeniable acceptance—the axiomatic status—of this a priori of argumentation, two equally necessary conclusions follow. First, it follows under what circumstances no rational solution to the problem of conflict arising from scarcity exists. Suppose in my earlier scenario of Crusoe and Friday that Friday was not the name of a man but of a gorilla. Obviously, just as Crusoe can run into conflict regarding his body and its standing room with Friday the man, so he might do so with Friday the gorilla. The gorilla might want to occupy the same space that Crusoe occupies. In this case, at least if the gorilla is the sort of entity that we know gorillas to be, there is in fact no rational solution to their conflict. Either the gorilla wins, and devours, crushes, or pushes Crusoe aside (that is the gorilla’s solution to the problem) or Crusoe wins, and kills, beats, chases away, or tames the gorilla (that is Crusoe’s solution). In this situation, one may indeed speak of moral relativism. One may concur with Alasdair MacIntyre, a prominent philosopher of the relativist persuasion, who asks as the title of one of his books, Whose Justice? Which Rationality?—Crusoe’s or the gorilla’s? Depending on whose side one chooses, the answer will be different. However, it is more appropriate to refer to this situation as one in which the question of justice and rationality simply does not arise: as an extra-moral situation. The existence of Friday the gorilla poses for Crusoe merely a technical problem, not a moral one. Crusoe has no other choice but to learn how to manage and control the movements of the gorilla successfully just as he must learn to manage and control the inanimate objects of his environment.

By implication, only if both parties to a conflict are capable of engaging in argumentation with one another can one speak of a moral problem and is the question of whether or not there exists a solution meaningful. Only if Friday, regardless of his physical appearance (i.e., whether he looks like a man or like a gorilla), is capable of argumentation (even if he has shown himself to be so capable only once), can he be deemed rational and does the question whether or not a correct solution to the problem of social order exists make sense. No one can be expected to give an answer to someone who has never raised a question or, more to the point, to someone who has never stated his own relativistic viewpoint in the form of an argument. In that case, this “other” cannot but be regarded and treated like an animal or plant, i.e., as an extra-moral entity. Only if this other entity can in principle pause in his activity, whatever it might be, step back so to speak, and say “yes” or “no” to something one has said, do we owe this entity an answer and, accordingly, can we possibly claim that our answer is the correct one for both parties involved in a conflict.

Likewise, for a human who refuses to engage in rational discourse, who refuses to recognize and respect the basic rights of others, they must also be regarded as technical problems and dealt with as if they are wild beasts. …

Hoppe on Treating Aggressors as Mere “Technical Problems” Read Post »

Maybe The Journal News did us a favor after all

Firearms, Private Crime
Share

Print and online media were predictably flooded with stories on guns and gun control in the week following the horrific massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. Few stories, however, attracted attention like this one published by The Journal News, a White Plains, New York-based paper, which included an interactive map pinpointing the names and locations of registered handgun permit holders throughout two suburban New York counties. The Journal News did nothing wrong in obtaining the information; handgun permits in New York are public records, and a Freedom of Information Act request was all the paper needed to get them.

Although legal, their action is problematic for other reasons, not the least of which is that the story accompanying the map starts off with the shooting of a local woman by her mentally disturbed 77-year-old neighbor, who “had amassed a cache of weapons — including two unregistered handguns and a large amount of ammunition — without any neighbors knowing.” Which seems to beg the question of how a map of registered permit holders might have alerted this person’s neighbors to his firearms ownership status. Also, there is no way of knowing who owns rifles and shotguns, even though they’re just as lethal as handguns, because New York does not require ownership permits for them. So what legitimate public interest is served by a newspaper outing legal handgun owners, who presumably (because felons cannot own firearms) have not committed any crimes?

Whatever their motivation, The Journal News was perhaps not prepared for the firestorm of criticism it ignited, which has prompted them to hire armed security for their editorial offices:

The armed guards — hired from local private security companies — have been stationed in The Journal News’s headquarters and in a satellite office in West Nyack, N.Y., since last week, said Janet Hasson, the president and publisher of The Journal News Media Group.

“The safety of my staff is my top priority,” Ms. Hasson said in a telephone interview.

Quite understandable, but for a newspaper that apparently believes the presence of guns in their readers’ neighborhoods constitutes a safety risk they should know about, doesn’t it strike anyone as ironic that it would then hire people with guns to protect its staff? The only point they seem to be proving is that guns help people feel safer. So wouldn’t a neighborhood full of legally-owned firearms be among the safest places to live? We already know the answer to that¹.

¹ With the caveat, of course, that mandatory gun ownership is no more libertarian than gun restrictions.

Maybe The Journal News did us a favor after all Read Post »

President Obama Should be Subject to Income Tax in States and Foreign Countries He Visits

Taxation
Share

I’m no tax expert. In fact my lowest grade in law school was in … income tax. Big surprise. But I pay enough in taxes to qualify me to opine, I think.

President Obama earns a $400k a year salary. This makes no sense, as I’ve noted in Taxing Astronauts and the President (see also Why is it okay to pay an intern $0? or, liberal hypocrisy on the minimum wage), because most people would pay lots of money to be President; if anything, they should receive no salary, and be taxed on the imputed income they receive for being permitted to be President. But there you have it.

Now Obama pays federal and presumably D.C. income tax on his salary, because he resides in D.C. (Instead of taxing them on the stolen tax dollars paid them, why not just pay them the difference, tax free? Nah, make ’em file the tax returns like us plebes.)

But when Obama travels outside D.C.—to another state, or country—he is “always on the job” and usually performing official duties that he is being paid for. Apparently this is technically subject to local income tax in the state or country one performs activities in that earn money. This is why it’s okay to visit the US on a tourist visa, for example, but you cannot earn money while here. And so on.

Consider how pro athletes and famous performing artists are treated when they travel around making money in various states and countries. As noted in an L.A. Times article a couple years ago, “The taxing life of a pro athlete” (tagline: It’s one of life’s certainties: Athletes have to pay for income earned on the road):

For eight of his first nine major league seasons, Angels pitcher Darren Oliver worked in Texas, where the stars at night are big and bright and, more important, there’s no state income tax.

Yet, each April, he pays a small army of accountants to file more than a hundred pages of returns — and sometimes checks — to as many as a dozen states and one province in Canada, covering taxes on income he earned on the road.

In the tax world, it’s no secret that athletes are treated differently from other highly paid workers — investment bankers and corporate lawyers, for example — who also work in multiple states. The jock tax, critics say, is poorly targeted, arbitrarily enforced and unrealistically burdensome — and also completely understandable given the current economic climate.

“No, it’s probably not fair,” says Ralph Espinosa, a Miami-based accountant who has done tax work for several NFL and major league players. “But they make more money than most of us. Their information is easily accessible online. Most people know their salaries [and] they can go in and see their schedules.”

Athletes are taxed based on “duty days” they spend in each state. In baseball, there are approximately 181 “duty days,” meaning a player earning $1.81 million would make $10,000 each duty day. Therefore, if that player’s team had three games in California, he would be responsible for taxes on $30,000 of income.

At that point, all the tax collectors have left is a math problem to figure out that Ichiro Suzuki, the highest-paid baseball player in Washington, a tax-free state, will have to pay more than $218,000 in California taxes for the 25 games the Mariners will play there this summer.

The salaries and schedules for lawyers, bankers, entertainers and other professionals who might be subject to nonresident taxes aren’t as accessible. But that hasn’t stopped some states from trying to reel in CEOs and other well-paid executives by auditing corporations for their travel records, tax professionals say.

Touring entertainers such as singers or comedians often have taxes withheld by either the promoter or the venue. But collecting from film crews can be trickier since shooting schedules aren’t publicized and are frequently changed and actors aren’t on the set every day.

(See also The Tax Significance of Place of Residence for Professional Athletes.) So it appears that anyone who travels out of their home state as part of their income-earning job, technically is supposed to file multiple tax returns pro-rated by jurisdiction, but most people don’t do this because it’s hard for the other states to know. Sort of the same reason states have trouble enforcing the “use taxes” that residents of the state are supposed to pay on sales-tax free purchases of goods from Amazon. But for pro athletes, ” Their information is easily accessible online. Most people know their salaries [and] they can go in and see their schedules.” For normal people, however, like film crews, “shooting schedules aren’t publicized and are frequently changed”. So states focus on the big fry.

However: President Obama has a somewhat high salary, it’s publicly known, and it’s known publicly when he’s in another state or country. So when Obama meets with the President of France, in Paris, France should go after him for the French income tax due on the portion of his income attributable to his time in France. Or Canada, or California, or so on. I demand rectification of this outrage!

Or, better yet, he should be brought up on tax evasion charges.

And the same applies for other prominent politicians, like governors, members of Congress, Secretary of State, and so on.

And while we’re at it, politicians ought to have their Amazon accounts audited to ensure they are voluntarily paying use taxes in their state for all items bought sans sales tax.

President Obama Should be Subject to Income Tax in States and Foreign Countries He Visits Read Post »

A TLS New Year’s Resolutions List

The Basics
Share

Most of us probably will admit that we keep resolutions only slightly better than politicians keep campaign promises. Even President Obama couldn’t keep a promise not to raise taxes on all but the wealthiest Americans, as the current “fiscal cliff” deal does not extend the 2% payroll tax cut, which impacts every person earning a paycheck.

So don’t look to Washington to keep any resolutions in the new year. Instead, we’ve come up with a list of suggestions for our readers to continue stoking the flames of liberty, or at least keep them flickering a little while longer. (Editorial resolution for TLS: drop the tired metaphors for liberty already.)

1. Play with guns (and invite a non-gun owner to come with you)

Guns, and more to the point gun control, promise to figure prominently in the media and in Congress this year, as the country still grapples with its most horrific school shooting yet. But the public debate is largely fueled by hysteria, misinformation, and outright lies. For the vast majority of gun owners, they are simply tools for self-defense, hunting, and having fun. And what better way to demonstrate the latter than an outing to a shooting range? For a lot of people, that’s the only legal place to try their hand at firing some types of guns. Actually handling an AR-15, the so-called assault rifle that is the focus of both media pundits and gun policy wonks, may help demystify them and return some sanity to the average non-gun owner’s perspective on these useful and important tools.

A TLS New Year’s Resolutions List Read Post »

Scroll to Top