Monday, August 25, 2008

Gun Rights vs. Freedom?: How "take your guns to work" laws violate property rights - Reason Magazine

Gun Rights vs. Freedom?: How "take your guns to work" laws violate property rights - Reason Magazine: "Supporters of the right to keep and bear arms have long recognized the value of firearms for the defense of life, liberty, and property. But in Florida, a perverse conception of the 2nd Amendment has produced the opposite effect: The cause of gun rights is being used to attack property rights.

In 1987, Florida wisely affirmed personal freedom by letting law-abiding citizens get permits to carry concealed weapons. But this year, the legislature decided it was not enough to let licensees pack in public places. They also should be allowed to take their guns into private venues—even if the property owner objects.

The 'take your guns to work' law says anyone with a conceal-carry permit has a legal right to keep his gun locked in his car in the company parking lot. Until recently, companies had the authority to make the rules on their own premises. But when it comes to guns, that freedom is defunct."

-------------------
This is another example of what I think of as "repressive libertarianism," where certain people who call themselves libertarians invariably side with property owners who want to limit other people's liberties through the use of contract law. Property rights (usually held by somebody with a whole lot of economic clout) trump every other liberty. The libertarian defense of HOAs is the perfect example. The developer writes covenants and leaves. Everybody who lives there has to obey them forever, even if they lose due process of law and expressive liberties.

As private corporations take over more functions of government, this position could lead to gradual elimination of constitutional liberties. But ironically some state governments are pushing back against the property owners, not only in this gun situation but with HOAs and condos.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

"As private corporations take over more functions of government, this position could lead to gradual elimination of constitutional liberties."


Here's would could be a outtake from the script of the CBS TV mini series "Jericho" featuring the tag line from a Jennings & Rall news release:

Jennings & Rall, a subsidiary of Halliburton Corporation, is the administrator of the government of the Western United States based in Cheyenne, WY. Prior to the nuclear attacks of September, 2006, Jennings & Rall was the largest community association management company in the United States.

Fred Fischer said...

Private corporations and constitutional liberties have two very different objectives and like oil and water, they don’t mix.
Remember corporations owe allegiance to no one except to the bottom line. Or have any responsibility to protect the constitutional liberties or the social well being of its customers and shareholders who are the source of their financial wealth and very existence.
This concern for the loss of constitutional liberties by private corporations that act as governments is more than justified, its historical fact. Americas original thirteen colonies were today’s private CID corporations acting as governments that ultimately failed and were replaced by The US Constitution with its constitutional liberties, rights, privileges and multi-level governance.
It seems that history is repeating itself before our very eyes. Because to many in public office have decided to disregard past history and closed their eyes. In favor of a gaining or continuing a political career through support provided by those who depend in part or in whole on the existence of these private CID corporations for their livelihood.

Anonymous said...

I was aware of the Reason article, but not of your blog post on this subject here, when I wrote my modest proposal (January 18, 2010).

It was, of course, conceived out of my frustration with the Independence Institute's position -- and general libertarian support -- of HOAs.

Anonymous said...

I recently invented the word "propertyrian" (here) to describe what our host calls "repressive libertarianism."

If you do a Google search for "propertyrian", it asks if "Did you mean propertarian," which "propertyrian" is an obvious and intentional variation of.

In the mean time, read Kerry Howley's "Are Property Rights Enough?" (Reason, November 2009). While I think it raises more questions than answers, and I don't necessarily agree with all her answers, she states a point that my fellow libertarians tend to ignore: "Not every threat to liberty is backed by a government gun."

Anonymous said...

> "repressive libertarianism," where certain people who call themselves libertarians
> invariably side with property owners who want to limit other people's liberties
> through the use of contract law.

On the theme of liberty and contract law:

Via Instapundit, Pam Geller, who runs a website called "Atlas Shrugged," may sue PayPal for calling her blog a hate site, and threatening to discontinue her PayPal account.

Yet, according to the Ayn Randians (and Rand Paulians), the PayPal corporation can discriminate against Ms. Geller however it wants.

PayPal's actions are simply conservative and libertarian corporatism in action.

By failing to start her own on-line payment service, and expecting "fairness" from PayPal instead, Ms. Geller is a disgrace to the principles of Atlas Shrugs. She needs PayPal more than they need her.

The irony -- or is it hypocrisy -- is that when HOA corporations treat individual homeowners much worse than PayPal is treating Ms. Geller, conservatives and libertarians prostrate themselves before the HOA corporation with the same disgraceful reverence that President Obama greeted King Abdullah.

Anonymous said...

I've posted a question about the professor's "repressive libertarianism" comment at Reason, here. The reactions are interesting.

To paraphrase Ian Baruma, "Why Do Freedom-Loving Conservatives & Libertarians Love Privatized Tyrants?"

The common element of conservatives and libertarians is an obsession with government power, as though any government regulation were so intrinsically harmful that any non-government entity must be our friend.

Criticism of government policies and economic practices are necessary and often just, but why do conservatives and libertarians continue to discredit their critical stance by applauding privatized strongmen who oppress and violate the rights of others? Is it simply a reverse application of that famous American cold war dictum: "He may be a bastard, but he's our bastard"? Or is it the romantic attraction to privatization often felt by conservatives and libertarians that blinds them to the real world results of corporatism?

When liberty and individual property rights are endangered, the right should be equally hard on private corporations who violate individual rights. Failure to do so encourages authoritarianism everywhere, including in our homes, where the mafia-like behaviour of HOAs discredits capitalism as being synonymous with extortion rackets.