In an essay earlier today, I mentioned the way we argue for gun rights, and why I think it is such a futile approach. But, as I was discussing another matter, I really did not have time to get into it to the degree I wanted. So, allow me to elaborate a bit.

You see, gun control argument almost always center on justifications for having guns. We hear that guns are useful for hunting, or for crime prevention, or for hobby shooting. And we always hear the case argued in these terms. Even the practical arguments are implicitly based upon utility, argument s being offered that concealed carry laws cut crimes by X percent or that handguns int he house prevent Y crimes a year.

Even the most "radical" arguments still hinge on utility. Even those who fall back on Locke and argue that guns exist to preserve liberty make their case that guns serve the purpose of protecting freedom. So, in essence they are still making a utilitarian argument, just with a different view as to the function guns are supposed to be performing.

There are three problems with any utilitarian approach.

First, and on the most pragmatic level, utilitarian arguments are losing arguments. You can see this in the gun control advocates who argue "you don't need an assault rifle for hunting". Any argument that bases gun rights on a specific function opens the door for "exceptions". The opposition can argue that people can hold guns for self defense or hunting, but they don't "need" X, and then they ban X. Once X is banned, they can extend to Y, then Z. Finally they can argue that people have access to only a handful of guns, yet none of the ill effects have happened, so why not do away with the rest? Or else they can argue there is some perfect substitute, the way many argue that police protect individuals form crime, so there is no need for private gun ownership.

Second, a utilitarian argument simply invites a "balancing test" counter argument. Since the argument from utility implicitly declares rights only exist because they provide some social value, it becomes easier to do away with right. Unlike the absolute rights of the founders, utilitarian rights are subject to restrains or can even be argued away, provided the revocation of the right is more "useful" than the right. And so, we hear people who argue that guns should be restricted because the crime prevention they provide is less than the amount of damage they do through crime and accidental shootings. And form a utilitarian perspective that is absolutely correct (provided the numbers are right, of course). Still, by adopting a utilitarian approach, you simply ask for such arguments.

Finally, by arguing "we can keep guns because they do X", we confess that the government has the absolute right to act UNLESS we can show why it shouldn't. I would much prefer we argue in the opposite direction. I do not have a right to bear arms because arms provide some service, I have the right to bear arms and the state needs to provide some pretty compelling argument to remove that right. We should not argue that there are reasons for the state not to act, we should instead demand the state provide some very strong justifications before it can act.

It seems a trivial point, but it is not. Once we accept the unlimited power of the state to regulate, it changes how we see everything. Just look at my arguments in my "Vision of Government" essay and see how radical those simple propositions seem. Why? Because since the radical changes introduced by the progressives at the turn of the 20th century, and institutionalized first by FDR and then by the liberals of the later 60's, we have come to accept that government has no natural limits, and we must argue for our freedom from the state rather than the state showing its need to act.

It seems a small thing, but viewpoint is actually quite significant. When James Madison argued that relief to refugees was not in the Constitution, he was not run out of town on a rail, and his colleagues who opposed him struggled to find a constitutional justification for their position. Why? Because they saw the Constitution as a binding compact, to be interpreted as written, and that every act needed to have a basis in that document.

Today we would see Madison resigning in disgrace and the law passing unanimously. Why? Because we have come to see the government as the primary actor in any crisis, and questions of constitutionality as mere smokescreens used in a power struggle between parties. Any politician who argues form principle is seen as either unrealistic, or else an a manipulator, using principle to mask his real ambitions. We no longer believe in a limited state or a binding compact. In our "realism" we have abandoned much that makes government predictable and consistent, which means that planning is also much more diffuclt. But that is the topic for another essay.

For now, allow me to say that we should always be cautious about arguing on our opponent's terms. Instead, we should keep our own perspective first in our minds, and instead force them to argue on our terms. Do not accept omnipotent government, but ask instead that they justify each and every act of the state. It might not work, but if it does, it will bring about a dramatic change in how these topics are argued. And more than that, he all of us see the state and our relation to it,