[derosa8]

Thanks. Well I suppose it doesn’t hurt for people to continue pointing out they have no legitimate authority to do the things they do under the commerce clause or the taxing power. As a side note, I would guess that Nullification might see some push if they try to pass a lot of Federal restrictions on guns.

[derosa8]

Suppose the 2nd amendment were never drafted. I still cannot find how the Feds would justify banning firearms. I suppose they could use the old “substantial effects” line associated with the commerce clause.

[derosa8]

squamousguy, I recommend this debate between a Christian and atheist as a starting point to delve into some of the issue you raise: http://www.bellevuechristian.org/faculty/dribera/htdocs/PDFs/Apol_Bahnsen_Stein_Debate_Transcript.pdf

You can also find the audio on youtube if you prefer to listen rather than read.

[derosa8]

The main problem with gun control being exercised by the government now is that to the extent that it actually attempts to CONTROL gun ownership, it violates free citizens’ right to self defense. If you must undergo a 2 year training course and pay extra fees [or other stipulations] in order to purchase a handgun, then there is less of chance that you will be able too. Therefore, there is a greater chance that you would be unable to defend yourself/family from a violent attack. The government does not have a right to strip citizens from a right to self defense.

Here is a paper I thought was quite good in defending private gun ownership: http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/guncontrol.htm

[derosa8]

THanks for the recommendations Dr. Gutzman

[derosa8]

Thanks for the replies!

[derosa8]

Porphy at it again!

“I was not expecting to get such a heavy dose of that perspective when I signed up for courses tied so heavily with liberty, reason, and logic.”

I also think it’s interesting to note that Christians believe all 3 of those things (liberty, reason, and logic) emanate from the character of God. Only distorted Christianity takes the approach of trying to coerce submission to Christ.

[derosa8]

People may use the phrase “beg the question” without referring to the logical fallacy, and I think that is the case when it “leads to an obvious question that must be asked.”

The logical fallacy of begging the question is essentially synonymous with “circular reasoning” “putting the cart before the horse” or “assuming what you are trying to prove.”

[derosa8]

I second all these questions!

[derosa8]

Thanks Dr. Casey for your logical analysis. It’s definitely fun to practice on real world examples like this, but I often have trouble formulating the subjects on my own. I think I need to do more logic exercises, but your analysis in the forums is always insightful and…..logical!

[derosa8]

Dr. Casey, I would love to see a PDF copy of your book [my email is derosa8@tcnj.edu if we should continue this outside the forums]. Your insight is always spot on. Are any of your others books available in PDF?

[derosa8]

8 is Arian, not sure about 7.

[derosa8]

Porphy at it again. Great thorough responses.

[derosa8]

“Businesses always employ the people they need to employ to get the job done.” – That is not a meaningful response. In fact, it is contradicted by just about any business you can think of. Think of any factory, school, hair salon, restaurant, an electric company, investment bank, landscapers, etc. Immediately, you can think of a practical way of firing employees and redistributing their tasks. Or, if their tasks were non-essential the business may eliminate them altogether. Just think how many people have basic jobs working cash registers, filing papers, answering phones, cleaning, and taking out garbage. Would it really be impossible for businesses to continue operating if they had to fire a few of each?

The bottom line is this [which it sounds like you have already mentioned to your friend]: Businesses are not charities. They will NOT employ workers that cost more in wages than they contribute to the production/service. Granted, sometimes it is difficult to measure how much in dollars an assembly line worker contributes to the final product, but that is the job of entrepreneurs to estimate what is called the marginal revenue product of their employees. There is no doubt that employee wages will tend toward their marginal revenue product in an unhampered market. I can explain that further if necessary. Also, search for the minimum wage thread in the Austrian Economics discussion forum because that is where I learned a lot of the mechanics of this issue.

Here is a good video of one example:
http://learnliberty.org/videos/does-minimum-wage-hurt-workers

[derosa8]

Don’t disregard Porphy’s original response. If wages were doubled by law, the immediate result would be increased unemployment. Workers who are not worth the doubled wage the employer would be forced to pay would be fired. That’s one of the best ways to combat “living wage” arguments, since it is much better to have a “non-living” wage than to be unemployed with no wage at all.

[Author]

Posts