[tjic]

> Why would we allow individuals to have such power?

Who is this "we" that has either the power, right, or wisdom to overrule people on such things?

> So the issue of gun ownership is the same issue as freedom in technology

Wonderfully said.

Power is a zero-sum game. Either I have the right to { own a gun | duplicate a file | mix acid and water in a test tube | print a part on a 3-d printer } or someone else takes that right from me and holds it themself.

There are wonderful deontological arguments as to why it is wrong to take rights away from me (or you, or you, or you), but even at the utilitarian level: why should we expect better outcomes if a right is removed from individual A and given to individual B? Was Germany better off when the Jews and Gypsies had their right to firearms ownership transferred to the state? Was China better off under Mao when individuals had their right to plant, grow, harvest and sell their crops transferred to the state? Was the United States better off when each person had their right to make decisions about alcohol consumption taken away and transferred to the state?

I argue that restricting rights is wrong on both deontological AND utilitarian grounds.

The utitarian argument for these sorts of things tends to be "give me the power, and I'll make better decisions". The incentives don't usually support the fulfillment of that promise.

[potatolicious]

> "Who is this "we" that has either the power, right, or wisdom to overrule people on such things?"

The same "we" that has existed since the beginning of our species, when groups of humans decided to live together.

"We" is an expression of all people - not biased by East or West, Black or White. In all societies the price of living in a group, and enjoying the benefits thereof, are concessions to personal freedom, and the recognition of some authority that is capable of making the decision.

It's also important to note (because it's so frequently confused) that "we" is not necessarily a government. In the absence of a government, "we" will manifest itself in other formats, most frequently tyrannical.

The only way for you to extricate yourself from this (by your implication, malevolent) "we" is to live entirely without dependency on any semblance of society.

[grannyg00se]

And the difficulty is in determining the limitations that we allow the "we" to impose on the individual. In most cases agreement is easy to achieve, but in some cases there is a difference of opinion that is insurmountable. Without the possibility of agreement, it may be that the only option is to separate the group into those that believe option A and those that believe option B. Then individuals can move into whichever group fits their beliefs. This would be an iterative process.

Given the way that humans have handled one group separating into another, I think this might be a devastating experiment to try. But in theory, it seems plausible that after a number of iterations you would belong to a group that fits your ideals perfectly.

[jtc331]

The libertarian philosophical response would be that people only have the two basic rights to life and property. And one person cannot take away those rights from another. The government then exists solely to limit behavior strictly only in cases in which one of those two rights are being taken away by another individual.

The point of that argument is that no individual has the right to do with the government what he would not be right to do by himself. This means that since he can't individually limit the rights of another, he can't use the government to do it either.

This means that there are no concessions at all to personal freedom to live in a group. Not really anyway. I mean, yes, you can't take someone else's life (unless they attempt to take yours.) But that's hardly a restriction necessary only in large groups of people. It's kind-of implied as soon as you have at least two people.

[randallsquared]

In the absence of a government, "we" will manifest itself in other formats, most frequently tyrannical.

Tyranny implies government. In the absence of government, therefore, there can be no tyranny. It's not clear to most people whether society without government is possible, of course (or, rather, most would assert that it isn't).

[glomph]

Power is not a zero-sum game. Some restrictions of power/rights enable more power/freedom than they take away. This is obvious. The restriction (or convention, but I think the point still stands) to drive on a particular side of the road allows us to do so much more than if we did not have the restriction, our net 'power' has increased. Similarly in many other cases.

I think that many of your examples are good ones and that arbitrary restrictions of freedom are wrong, but restrictions on the possession of weapons by the general public is not arbitrary and if you want to make a utilitarian case you are going to need to talk about the pros and cons of gun control itself not more generally about freedom and rights.