Marriage Equality Does Expand Liberty

The Foundation for Economic Education presented a debate on marriage equality. Richard Lorenc, from FEE, argued that marriage equality expands liberty. His opponent, Richard Esposito spends a lot of time spewing out "facts" that are half-truths and often out of context. FEE asks people to vote for the best one at the cost of $1 each, which says nothing about quality of arguments, only intensity of feelings about gay marriage.

Gay people and their supporters are passionate about this and so are anti-gay people. Most fall into neither camp and don't feel strongly. Those at the extreme "anti" side of the spectrum tend to be religious and obsessed with this. They outnumber gay people by about 4 to 1. In that sense, the FEE debate asking for $1.00 per vote is more likely to favor the anti-gay marriage side of the debate.

Let me first comment on Mr. Lorenc's case. His arguments are sound in theory, though short on fact, choosing to focus on the principles alone. Esposito, however, makes a lot of factual claims, but is weak on theory and his factual claims are often taken out of context, or are at best half truths.

Lorenc notices the argument for same-sex marriage has "distinct Hayekian undertones." He is correct about this and we present a more-in depth Hayekian analysis here:

Lorenc says "legalizing gay marriage simply expands the number of potential marriage licenses, removing the arbitrary limit that an opposite-sex definition creates." It does expand the number of people who may marry, but does much more than that as well. Currently, the state can deny marriage contracts—at least those of legal consequence—from gay couples. When we pass marriage equality, we remove that power from the state. Marriage, when one looks at what it does, also reduces the amount of control the state has over a couple. The amount of revenue it can extract from them is significantly reduced. In fact, anti-gay conservatives actually raised this issue before the Iowa Supreme Court, complaining that allowing gays to marry would reduce tax collections, and thus reduce their subsidies to straight couples.

First Account for Me: Libertarianism and Facts

There is a monologue toward the end of Peter Schaffer’s play Equus which I find fascinating. Dr. Martin Dysart is a psychologist dealing with a case he finds particularly disturbing. It forces him to rethink the entire foundation of his life’s work. He says of the case:

“It asks questions I've avoided all my professional life. A child is born into a world of phenomena, all equal in their power to enslave. It sniffs, it sucks, it strokes its eyes over the whole, uncountable range. Suddenly, one strikes. Then another. Then another. Why? Moments snap together,like magnets forging a chain of shackles. Why? I can trace them. I can, with time, pull them apart again. But why, at the start, they were ever magnetized at all...just those particular moments of experience and no others—I do not know. And nor does anybody else! If I don't know—if I can never know -what am I doing here? I don't mean clinically or socially doing, but fundamentally. These whys, these questions, are fundamental. Yet they have no place in a consulting room. So then, do I? Do any of us? This is the feeling, more and more within me—No Place. Displacement. ‘Account for me’...says staring Equus. ‘First, account for me!’"

I use this as an introduction to a particular kind of libertarian. Libertarians like to think in terms of principles—which is important. Some assume, however, that once a principle is adopted it is immune to facts and they need not consider them. I had one libertarian argue that “principles” exist so we don’t have to think about facts. I’m sorry, but they seem to have confused fundamentalist Christianity with libertarianism.

First, it is damn difficult to get principles right if facts are wrong. Principles are derived from facts. Add wrong facts together and the principle is not just in error, but could be damn lethal. There are many principles that are deadly and being a libertarian doesn’t make your principles automatically beneficial.

Second, all principles are tested by facts. If new facts seem to contradict your principles, you have to consider whether the principle needs adjusting. Facts test theories. If the theories don’t hold up against the facts, the rational conclusion is that the theories are wrong. Fundamentalists just dismiss inconvenient facts.

The “fact” ought to be inside your head screaming, “Account for me! First account for me!”

It is fine to use principles to make decisions when existing facts are consistent with them. Adding new facts changes nothing unless they contradict the principle. A principle, once accepted, is not set in cement, it is always open to question if new evidence contradicts it.

Fundamentalist libertarians go wrong when they think their principles are set in cement and ignore facts to their beliefs. They have ceased to be rational libertarians and have become faith-based libertarians.

The Day Ayn Rand Died

This original Rand photo is for sale.

Ayn Rand was dead.

 My heart sank. I was living in the small town of Willimantic, Connecticut, not far from New York City. The newspaper said that the funeral would be at the Frank E. Campbell Funeral Home.

 I knew that I had to be there. I needed to say good bye and to say thank you.

In high school I was ashamed of my intellect and abilities. Throughout junior high I was pretty much a straight A student. I was the youngest member of the National Honour Society at the school, all the others were finishing their studies while I had barely just begun.

At my 8th grade graduation I listened to a millionaire motivational speaker tell us about possibility thinking. I always knew that more was possible but it was the “more” that frightened me.

 Each year the school gave an award to a student who exemplified intellect and maturity. The thought of winning terrified me. As we approached the moment that the award winner would be announced my heart raced. There was a horrid terror gripping my emotions.

The last thing I wanted was to win. The last thing I wanted was to be ridiculed for achieving something. The ethos of the other students was one that despised intelligence and accomplishment except that which was achieved by brute force. 

Playing God & Why Somebody Has To Do It

Prince Charles warned of the “disastrous consequences” of biotechnology. The precise dangers were never revealed. But according to Reuters he said, “tampering with nature is an affront to God.”

Conservative historian Paul Johnson called biotechnology a “new, infant monster.” Gertrude Himmelfarb has written that such research is contra naturn (against nature) and laments that this alone is not longer sufficient to put the fear of God into scientists.

But throughout human history each new scientific discovery was subjected to the same assault.

Final Micro-Loan of the Year

The Moorfield Storey Institute regularly gives micro-loans to individuals developing their businesses in the developing world. We have made loans in Ecuador, Benin, Tajikistan, Zambia, Bolivia, Peru, Paraguay, Mongolia, Azerbaijan, and El Salvador. The Institute is entirely funded by donations from its staff, friends and from proceeds from sales at our book service, Fr33minds.com.

Our most recent loan is to Eris Rodolfo in El Salvador. Eris runs a bookstore and general store from the same premises. He lives with his in-laws, his wife, and two children, 7 and 15. He has one employee and has been in business for three years. He wishes to purchase notebooks and books for the new school term as well a products such as cooking oil, and grains. He is trying to expand his inventory so as to improve his economic position.

The Storey Institute is a 501(c)3 organization. Your donations are critical. Most of the Institute's income comes from the staff, who donate their time and resources. In addition to running the Adam Smith Benevolent Fund, the outlet for our charitable giving, we operate Cobden Press, which publishes books of interest to classical liberals and libertarians. We distribute books at discounted prices through Fr33minds.com and also contribute a regular column to Huffington Post. At this time, due to the lingering recession sales have been slow at Fr33minds.

The Institute is having a very rough time financially. Your donations are tax deductible and are especially needed at this time. To make a donation just go here.

Homicides and Guns: What US Data Shows

" I previously argued that international data generally shows increased gun ownership does not cause increased numbers of homicides. Sweden and Switzerland have relatively high gun ownership rates with very low homicide rates. South Africa has very low gun ownership but high homicide numbers. I concluded: “While it would be stupid to say that gun ownership is the only factor influencing homicide rates, it would be even more stupid to claim that the numbers show that gun ownership increases homicides. The evidence does NOT support that when we look at international data.”

What about the 50 states? Homicide rates were easy to find, thanks to the Census Bureau. However, determining gun rates is a bit difficult. I use two different sets of figures for this. One set purports to show the percentage of residents who own guns and is from USLiberals.about.com; the other was compiled by The Daily Beast, using the number of background checks, per 100,000 people, performed by the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System, used before a gun is legally sold to someone by any firearms dealer.

Does high gun ownership translate into high homicides rates? The ten states with the highest ownership rates were Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, South Dakota, West Virginia, Mississippi, Arkansas, Idaho, Alabama and North Dakota. All of them have ownership rates between 50% and 60%. The average homicide rate for these 10 states is 4.07, which is below the national average of 5.1, according to the Census Bureau.

The ten states with the lowest percentage of gun ownership were Florida, Maryland, California, Illinois, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Hawaii. The average homicide rate in theses states is 4.52, which is lower than the national average, but higher than the top 10 gun-owning states. 

The Daily Beast says the background check rate, per 100,000 people, is the best data we have on gun ownership, but admits that for Kentucky the numbers are all out of whack, due to monthly background checks there. If we use this data—excluding Kentucky—the top ten gun-friendly states are Montana, North Dakota, West Virginia, Alaska, Wyoming, South Dakota, Oklahoma, New Hampshire, Wisconsin and Alabama. For these top 10 gun-friendly states, the homicide rate averages 3.6 per 100,000, again well below the national average of 5.1.

With this data, the 10 least gun-friendly states would be New Jersey, Hawaii, New York, Rhode Island, Maryland, California, Massachusetts, Delaware, Florida and Michigan. These 10 states had an average homicide rate of 4.47. This is again lower than the national average—though not as significantly as before—but once again, well above the 10 states that are most gun friendly.

If we look at the ten states with the lowest homicide rates (NH, VT, IA, UT, ID, MN, HI, ND, WY, ME), averaging 1.57, we find they average 7298 background checks per 100,000 people. The ten most deadly states, in terms of murders, averaging 7.96, (LA, NM, IL, MD, TN, AL, MS, SC, MO, OK) have homicide rates significantly higher and they have an average of 6,990 background checks per 100,000.

If we look at the ten least murderous states, we see their gun-ownership rate is 41.34% of their populations. But, the most deadly states have ownership rates of 39.82%

Hawaii ranks dead last in terms of gun ownership (6.7%) yet six other states have lower homicide rates and average gun ownership rates more than six times higher (average 42.63%). Louisiana is 1^st in homicide rates (12.3) and 13^th in gun-ownership rates. The twelve states with more guns per capita have a significantly lower homicide rate, 3.96.

In second place, in terms of homicide rates, is New Mexico (10), yet it ranks 32^nd in gun ownership. Illinois is in third place, in regards to homicides (8.4), but in 44^th place in regards to gun ownership.

In conclusion, allow me to rephrase what I said before: “While it would be stupid to say that gun ownership is the only factor influencing homicide rates, it would be even more stupid to claim that the numbers show that gun ownership increases homicides. The evidence does NOT support that when we look at national data.” I previously argued that international data generally shows increased gun ownership does not cause increased numbers of homicides. Sweden and Switzerland have relatively high gun ownership rates with very low homicide rates. South Africa has very low gun ownership but high homicide numbers. I concluded: “While it would be stupid to say that gun ownership is the only factor influencing homicide rates, it would be even more stupid to claim that the numbers show that gun ownership increases homicides. The evidence does NOT support that when we look at international data.”


 

Homicides and Gun Ownership: What International Numbers Tell Us

England’s left-of-center Guardian newspaper has charted gun ownership in over 170 countries. They use data from the Small Arms Survey, which looks at private ownership of guns in various nations. The Guardian then compares firearm ownership to homicide rates—though they only look at homicides with firearms, not the total homicide rate.

Their data shows the United States has 88.8 guns for every 100 people, with a firearm homicide rate by firearm of 2.97 per 100,000 people. The unspoken theory is that reduced ownership of firearms results in fewer murders by firearms—whether it results in more murders by other means is not addressed. (Note: all gun ownership numbers are per 100 people, while homicide rates are per 100,000.)

How does gun ownership correlate with murder by firearms internationally? Argentina is at 3.02, with only 10.2 firearms per 100. The Bahamas has gun ownership of only 5.3, but has 15.37 firearm homicides. Bangladesh has gun ownership below 0.5, yet their death rate by firearms is still 1.1. In Barbados, gun ownership is only 7.8, but the homicide rate is 2.99. In Belize there is only 1 firearm for every ten people, yet the firearm homicide rate is 21.82.

Canada has a relatively high fire ownership rate (30.8), yet a low death-by-firearm rate (0.51). Chile has 10.7 weapons per 100 people, yet a firearm homicide rate of 2.16 per 100,000. Colombia has only 5.9 guns per 100 people, yet the firearm homicide rate is 27.09. Costa Rica has a firearm homicide rate of 4.59, well above the US, but a gun ownership rate of 9.9 per 100, well below the US. Croatia and Cyprus have relatively high gun ownership rates (21.7 and 36.4 respectively), but relatively low firearm homicide rates: 0.39 and 0.46.

Ecuador has an ownership rate of just 1.3, but the firearm homicide rate is more than four times higher than the United States;—12.73. In El Salvador the ownership rate is just 5.8, but the firearm homicide rate is 39.9. Finland and France both have relatively high gun ownership rates by international standards, and very low firearm homicide rates: 0.45 and 0.06. Ditto for Germany with 30.3 firearms per 100, but a firearm homicide rate of 0.19.The same is true for Greece with 22.5, but 0.26 firearm homicides.

New Zealand has a firearm ownership rate of 22.6 per 100, but the homicide rate is only 0.16. In contrast, Nicaragua has only 7.7 guns per 100, yet the firearm homicide rate is 5.92. In Norway, 31.3 weapons per 100 people are in private hands, yet the homicide rate by firearms is just 0.05. Panama has a firearm ownership rate well below the US, 21.7%, but a homicide rate well above the US; 16.18. In Serbia, 37.8 people per 100 have a firearm, but the homicide rate is 0.46. South Africa has only 12.7 guns per 100 people but 17.03 is the firearm homicide rate. Sweden and Switzerland have relatively high gun ownership rates—31.6 and 45.7—and have relatively low firearm homicide rates—0.41 and 0.77.

The Guardian’s report is skewed, because it only looks at homicides by firearms, instead of total homicides from all causes. We see that some nations have very low rates of gun ownership, yet high rates of murder by firearm. Other countries have relatively high rates of gun ownership, yet very low rates of firearm related homicides.

So, how do international homicides rates, from all causes, compare with the presence of guns? I took the numbers the Guardian published, regarding the presence of guns in a society and compared them to homicide rates per country. When I combined the two listsm I had data for 169 nations. 

The 10 nations with the highest number of privately-owned guns averaged 44.14 firearms per 100 population. Their homicide rate per 100,000 population averaged 2.41. The 10 nations with lowest firearm ownership rates had only 0.44 firearms per 100 population but their homicide rate was 8.96. While the top 10 gun-owning countries have ownership rates 10 times higher than the 10 least armed nations, their homicide rate is 4 times lower. Out of the 169 nations surveyed here, the United States is first in gun ownership, but 86 of these nations have homicides rates higher than the United States.

I then looked at the 25 nations with the highest ownership of guns, versus the 25 with the lowest. The top 25 nations had 33.47 weapons per 100 people with a homicide rate of 1.7 per 100,000 people. The 25 least-armed nations had 0.64 guns per 100 people with a homicide rate of 10.45—more than five times as deadly as the 25 nations with the most guns.

Next, I looked at the 50 nations with the highest number of guns in comparison with the 50 with the lowest. The top 50 averaged 24.79 weapons, with a homicide rate of 5.88. In comparison, the 50 least-armed nations averaged 1.01 firearms per 100 with a homicide rate of 12.17—still more than double their more heavily armed counterparts.

I then looked at nations with 40 or more guns per 100 people. There are 4 such countries (US, Switzerland, Finland, and Yemen). They average 58.64 firearms per 100 people, with an average homicide rate of 2.85.

Next I took all nations in 30-39% range of gun ownership. There are 12 such nations with an average ownership rate of 32.59 per 100, and an average homicide rate of just 1.48 per 100,000. A further 11 nations have gun ownership rates between 20-29%; their average homicide rate is 3.39. There are 34 nations with between 10 and 19 guns per 100 people; averaging 14.2 guns per 100 with a homicide rate of 9.9. 108 nations have gun ownership rates below 10 per 100 people, averaging 3.53 firearms per 100, they also average 12.92 homicides per 100,000. 

The trend seems to be that nations with lower homicide rates have a higher proliferation of guns—the reverse of what is often claimed in the media. 

We can also come at this by viewing homicide rates first. The 10 nations with the highest homicide rates in the world, averaging 50.67 per 100,000, have 6.84 guns per 100 people. The ten nations with the lowest homicide rates—just 0.5 per 100,000—have gun rates of 20.39 per 100 people. While the “armed” nations have more than triple the number of privately-held firearms, their homicides rates are just 1/100^th those found in the 10 least-armed nations.

The 25 most deadly nations—with an average of 39.88 homicides per 100,000—have a gun proliferation rate 4.89 per 100. The 25 least deadly nations —0.77 per 100,000—have guns rates of 17.43 per 100.

While it would be stupid to say that gun ownership is the only factor influencing homicide rates, it would be even more stupid to claim that the numbers show that gun ownership increases homicides. The evidence does NOT support that when we look at international data.

For the data on the US states see our follow-up article here.