In the comments to Patterico’s post about Mike Rogers’ attempts to blackmail gay legislators to vote how he wants them to, a random comment caught my eye. A commenter calling himself “retire05″ said:

[Larry Craig] was elected to vote according to the will of his district, not his own personal views. And while there are many politicians who do believe as the voters who elected them, many do not.

Do we elect legislators to vote according to the will of the district? I always believed that we were voting for the person whose stances, combined, made them the most palatable candidate. Imagine the following scenario:

Candidate A believes that everything that’s bad for you in the slightest should be banned. He wants the government to strictly limit everyone’s diet and force everyone to go to the gym at least four days a week. Candidate B, on the other hand, believes that, while people should be encouraged to make healthy choices, it is more important that people are free to make their own choices and be happy.

Candidate B also believes, however, that all bathrooms should be unisex, while Candidate A thinks that whether a unisex bathroom or gender-restricted bathrooms are installed should be up to those who own the properties where that decision is going to be made.

95% of the population believes that they should be free to make their own decisions about their diet and exercise regimens, and they place that as one of the most important issues in this election. On the other hand, only 25% of the population believes that all bathrooms should be unisex, but they mostly believe that to be a minor issue.

Candidate B is elected.

Should Candidate B vote against the Unisex Bathroom Initiative? I don’t think so. If we were only interested in candidates who would vote according to the Will of the People, we would have replaced Senators and Representatives with computers that would simply vote according to the latest polls from inside their state/district as soon as the necessary technology for that became available. Instead, we elect people into those positions. Sometimes, we hold our noses and vote for someone who disagrees with us on many topics simply because they happen to be the candidate who agrees with us on the most important issues.

I think it’s much more important for a legislator to be a person of integrity, who is honest about his/her positions during the election season, than it is for a legislator to simply agree, mindlessly, with what The People say. Having legislators who listen too closely to the voice of the mob simply leads to mob rule, the fear of which was one of the major reasons we ended up with a Republic instead of a Democracy.

Xrlq has some bad news about the gun crisis, and he explains why the government should do something.

The Ambulance Driver linked The AnarchAngel the other day, and I’ve been working my way through the archives during my free time. Today, I reached this post, titled “Three Questions”. There isn’t much to the post itself, which asks three questions (as you could probably guess from the title) to gun control supporters:

1. You say you feel safer knowing that guns are banned; why is that?
2. Do you recognize that when guns are banned, the only people carrying guns will be criminals (who ignore such bans because they are criminals. no law will stop criminals from carrying guns); and as such by supporting gun control, you are saying that you’re fine with criminals having guns but not law abiding citizens?
3. Given this, do you believe that the mere possession of a gun turns a law abiding citizen into a criminal menace?

What makes the post interesting to me are the answers in the comments. I would’ve responded to this in the comments section of that post, but it’s a couple of months old, so the comments would likely never be read (except, maybe, by the proprietor of the blog). At least if I post them here, my two (semi-)regular readers might see it.

A commenter calling him(?)self “cREbralFIX” answers (apparently playing Devil’s Advocate, because he himself isn’t an “anti”) with a couple of basically emotional answers for the first two questions. Then, he says, in response to question #3, that “Guns are dangerous and only trained people with authority should have them.”

That very nearly made me laugh out loud. A later post from that same blog gives one example as to why it’s laughable, but that case is, perhaps, arguable — statists may think that the authorities were doing the rigth thing, or that a few incidents of this type are acceptable. What about cases like this? Are those the hands in which you feel comfortable placing the security of your family?

Later, a commenter named Stephen answers all three questions (I’m editing this slightly to remove Stephen’s restating of the questions, since you can see them above in the blockquote):

1. Fewer criminals get their hands on them. I feel safer on the Tube in London knowing the thug in the car is less likely to be armed than one on the train in Chicago.
2. Your logic is flawed, knowing that criminals will break the law doesn’t make one fine with it. Criminals and law enforcement will have guns. I personally wouldn’t have a problem with trained and licensed citizens carrying weapons, but I have a feeling that would be objectionable to you.
3. Of course not. The CCW holder is not a threat. The problem is the nature of the market leads this to an immense number of firearms on the market, many of which end up in the hands of criminals, and the social cost of that is unacceptable.

1. The thug in the Tube car in London is not less likely to be armed than the thug in the Chicago train. The London thug is simply (relatively slightly) less likely to be armed with a gun. The likelihood that the intended victim is armed in London is much lower^[a].

   I don’t know about you, but that doesn’t make me feel safe. Even if the intended victim is an average law-abiding citizen, he’s almost certain to be less capable in a physical fight than a thug (whose lifestyle would, presumably, make the ability to hold one’s own in a fight pretty necessary). A thug attacking a law-abiding citizen can be fairly confident that he can handle a hand-to-hand fight. A thug attacking a law-abiding citizen who is obviously physically weaker (see: your grandmother) can be almost certain of it. Firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens who have familiarized themselves with the use of said firearms evens the score^[b]. As the saying goes, “God made all Men, Samuel Colt made them equal.”

2. I actually agree that the original question is posed somewhat awkwardly, but Stephen is seizing on that awkward wording to defend himself when I’m fairly certain he knows what was intended. Whether “fine with it” or not, gun banners are actively choosing a situation where criminals are armed and citizens (law-abiding) are not.

   Without gun bans, there is a possibility that anyone (if not everyone) is armed. With gun bans, the only armed people are criminals^[c]. I see three scenarios:

   1. Guns are restricted, but the restriction is not perfect Criminals have guns, and their victims don’t. In this case, the victim’s best hope is to pray that the criminal is a mostly-decent (for a criminal), non-violent person who only wants to take their physical property. Given that the criminal has already pulled a weapon and threatened to use it, I’m not hopeful about the victim’s chances. The criminal has a massive advantage
   2. Guns are restricted, and the restriction is perfect No one has a gun. Physically imposing individuals who know how to handle themselves in hand-to-hand combat are probably safe, but most of us are probably at a disadvantage against any thug who chooses to attack us. ^[d] The criminal, being able to (mostly effectively) judge the threat level of their target, has a distinct advantage here, even if it’s not as much as when he is armed and the victim isn’t.
   3. Guns are not restricted. In this case, criminals have no way of knowing whether their intended victims are armed or not, which provides something of a deterrent to criminal behavior. If their victim is armed, the criminal may still have an advantage (he initiates the violence, and may be more experienced in combat), but it is a minimal advantage compared to the advantages he has in the other two cases.

   I don’t know about you, but I prefer scenario 3.

3. Many criminals will be armed regardless of whether guns are banned. For example, the fact that guns are banned on the Virginia Tech campus (and that it was probably illegal for Cho to have purchased a gun at all, given his history) did not protect the 32 people killed on April 16, 2007. Heck, even a “perfect” ban, arming no one but Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) will still be arming some criminals^[e]. The choice is not arm everyone or arm no one, it’s “arm the victims or leave them to the mercies of the criminals”. Despite that, those who would ban guns actively (and knowingly, in some cases) choose the second option.

Gun control supporters remind me of those who support socialized health care. I understand their motivation and thought processes, and I even admire them for what they are trying to do, but I fear that letting the government take over these things (self defense and health care) will lead to far worse problems than the current situation.

1. Thugs are, by their very nature, criminals. If they’re willing to disobey the law to attack/rob someone on a train, they’re probably willing to have a gun if they can get one. We’ll say the probability of the thug being armed drops from 75% to 25% with gun banning. On the other hand, the victim is, presumably, a law abiding citizen. No matter what the probability of his carrying a weapon in a nation where it is legal to do so, his probability of carrying in London is nil. [↩]
2. At least, it evens things somewhat. A thug who has experience in dealing with armed opponents may still have the advantage, but his advantage over grandma is considerably lessened when she’s holding a pistol. [↩]
3. Well, criminals and LEOs, but given that the latter can’t be everywhere at once and that the former will simply choose to blend in with law abiding citizens rather than conveniently attacking only when LEOs are nearby, the reality is that criminals are the only individuals armed in most violent encounters when guns are banned. [↩]
4. I’m reminded of the Simpsons “Treehouse of Horror” episode that spoofed The Monkey’s Paw. After a wish for world peace was made and all guns were destroyed, the world was attacked by aliens. A subsequent wish for the aliens to leave led to the development of a weapon — a board with a nail in it — that, given the absence of all the guns, was very effective. Banning guns won’t ban weapons. [↩]
5. LEOs as a whole are honest, I’m sure, but I can’t imagine there’s a police force in the world that’s entirely without corruption, unless it’s the size of Mayberry’s [↩]

Over at Captain’s Quarters, Captain Ed takes on Bruce Bartlett for his obsession with the FairTax’s alleged connection with Scientology. The whole post is worth a read.

In the comments, though, Kevin T. Keith insists that the Scientology connection isn’t Bartlett’s only criticism of the FairTax. He quotes those criticisms as follows:

the FairTax is deceptively calculated . . . [on] the post-tax value of the item. . . .
Unlike every other sales tax in the world, the FairTax actually applies to everything . . . the government buys. Unfortunately, the FairTax proposal doesn’t take into account this increase in government spending. . . .

The FairTax would track every household’s monthly income and then cut checks to minimize the pain, a logistical challenge that will ultimately resemble some welfare state nightmare. What’s more, this would cost gobs of money, forcing further cuts in spending.

For these and other reasons, every reputable tax expert who has ever looked at the FairTax has concluded that the true tax rate would have to be much, much higher than 23 percent (or even 30 percent)

The second item isn’t a fair criticism because it’s fundamentally untrue — the rebates involved with the FairTax proposal as it stands now are not based on income, but rather on the poverty rate and the number of people in the household. The third may or may not be fair, but it’s my understanding that the 23%/30%^[a] tax rate is supposed to be the equivalent of what we pay now, on average, so I’m not sure how the new “true tax rate” would have to be higher^[b].

The first criticism, though, seems to be that the tax will increase government spending because the government will have to pay the tax. I’m not sure whether the government is actually paying the tax or not — it’s been a while since I’ve read much about the FairTax, and my memory’s bad — but, for the sake of argument, we’ll say that they do pay the tax. We’ll also ignore the theory that prices should drop to make the after-sales-tax cost approximately the same as the current no-sales-tax cost^[c].

Suppose that the government currently pays $150 for every widget it uses. If the FairTax goes into effect, the government will now have to spend $195 for each widget ($150 * 130%). Increased spending, right? I guess it might look that way on the books, but it’s not really an increase in spending, since the extra expenditure (the $45 in taxes) goes right back into the government’s pocket.

Here’s another example. Suppose you and your friend Bob own a piece of property together, 50/50. The two of you have a falling out, and each of you wants the other to buy him out. You decide to sell it and split the money, but you can’t settle on a price. You can’t come to an agreement, so you go to court. The court forces you to put the piece of property up for sale on the auction block. Bob decides not to go to the auction, but you do. Now, imagine that you buy the property for $15,000. How much did you really spend on the property? You’ve actually spent not $15,000, but $7,500 (plus whatever overhead costs involved with the auction and the legal fees might be), because part of the purchase price goes back into your pocket as (one of) the current owner(s) of the property.

I’m not saying the FairTax is perfect. The idea appeals to me, but I’m open to any criticisms of it that come up. What bothers me is not that people criticize it, but that they use arguments that are torn apart so easily.

1. Quick lesson in why I’m calling it a 23%/30% tax rate instead of a “23%” tax rate or a “30%” tax rate: Suppose you earn $1,000 per week now and pay 23% in taxes. That means that you have $770 to spend at the end of the day. Now, suppose the FairTax goes into effect. You get $1,000 in take-home pay, but there is now a 30% sales tax on everything you buy. That means you can only spend $770 ($770 * 130% = $1,001). The FairTax supporters tend to call this a 23% tax rate, because it’s the equivalent of losing 23% in income taxes now. Unfortunately, because so few people are willing to think about this and see how a 30% sales tax is the same as a 23% income tax, it makes them easy to attack as “dishonest” (even though they’re not). [↩]
2. And I think that it should be noted that every ‘reputable’ tax expert has a vested interest in keeping the current system just exactly as it is right now. [↩]
3. The theory, as I understand it, is that if it costs a company less to make a widget (which it should, as they won’t be paying their “half” of their employees income taxes anymore), that competition will force them to drop prices. [↩]

I’m tremendously sorry for the friends and family of Mia Henderson, who was apparently killed by her college roommate. Her family, as well as the family of her alleged murderer, will be in my thoughts and prayers.