View Single Post
Old November 21, 2012, 10:26 PM   #36
Join Date: March 14, 2009
Posts: 49
Thank you @sigcurious for "getting it."

Oddly enough he/she included the rejection of the premise in their poll, yet doesn't like it when that's the option everyone seems to pick...
Yes, I thought that's only fair. It's just that so far I'm afraid a lot of people arguing for that choice are doing so because I didn't make the purpose or premises of the thread sufficiently clear.

I'd actually be interested to hear an argument for the first poll option that goes further than, "RKBA is a natural right and non-negotiable," and shows some understanding of the question as posed.

BTW zero-sum would be a better term for what you're trying to describe dbooksta. As people have already expressed, it's not a win to them to trade one for another, making a win-win impossible.
Not quite: I stipulate it be zero-sum in terms of net RKBA rights, however that can be quantified. (Hence my repeated caveat that we imagine no net ground is being ceded on RKBA.) But win-win trades are easy: They're the foundation of free markets. I'm sure we could come up with a better analogy, but suppose the government takes all your possessions except your best suit and a rusty hatchet. From your neighbor he takes everything except a sweat suit and an inherited revolver. Your neighbor is a dandy who has no skill at arms. You are a survivalist. It's a win-win to trade your weapons and clothes, because you'd rather have the revolver and your neighbor would rather have the suit.

Last edited by dbooksta; November 21, 2012 at 10:36 PM. Reason: Response to sigcurious's second post
dbooksta is offline  
Page generated in 0.04136 seconds with 7 queries