though really this is a constitutional failure. trying to fit the twenty first century to rules designed for the eighteenth.
the constitution's dooms invite the country along the path of decline. the us cannot solve its problems.
the second amendment isn't just dangerous. it is ridiculous. and yet it is unamendable within the constitution's voting calculus.
rights should always be abridged where they have caused or are likely to cause third parties unearned harm.
even seventeenth and eighteenth century people knew this. locke talked about life, liberty and property. the utilitarians thought the ultimate goal is to maximise happiness in society. mill outlined the harm principle. the discussion of freedom was already done and dusted in england before america declared its independence and wrote its constitution.
and in the twentieth century, economists such as pigou made clear the costs of negative externalities to an economy.
this isn't even controversial. freedom of the individual should not trespass. where it does, fences are appropriate.
| 