(no subject)

[timelets]

If somebody wants to kill a lot of people, would markets supply the weapons? Yeah. Would the markets care what the killer's true intentions are, e.g. mass murder vs self-defense? Nah.

Comments

[gomberg]

Actually, depends, among other things, on existing liability laws.

Markets, like everything else, do not exist in some abstract vacuum.

[timelets]

I meant "free markets."

It looks like the markets behave substantially the same even with the existing private liability laws that cover mostly negligence cases on the buyer side.

[gomberg]

Define "free markets." No markets may exist without well-defined property rights - and that includes liability rules.

[timelets]

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

[(Anonymous)]

That is, of course, part of the story. But not the whole story. Where did the butcher get the cow and what made the meat his to sell? Unless property rights are defined, buying and selling could not happen. The butcher could, of course, rob the farmer to get the cow and the customer could kill the butcher and take the meat. But this is not what Prof. Smith talked about in his treatise.

Again, markets need a legal environment to emerge. And such a legal environment would, necessarily, have to take a stand on liability (even if it does so implicitly, by not providing for it at all). GIVEN THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT, we may talk about what markets do or do not do. If it is not there, markets will not exist, and, hence, will not even deliver apples, still less something as complicated as guns.

[timelets]

Right. Given all that and 300 million guns in private hands, is there a new legal environment that enables a new market with new public safety products that have fewer side effects?

[malobukov]

If somebody wants to kill a lot of people, what weapon would he choose?

[timelets]

Whatever they can afford. For example, In a recent Las Vegas shooting, the killer bought some fairly expensive weapons and ammo.

[malobukov]

Incorrect. Las Vegas guy killed 58 using pretty expensive rifles, but New York guy killed 87, Oklahoma guy killed 168, and Korean guy killed 192. All with common household items.

[timelets]

And on 9/11 a bunch of Saudis killed thousands of people by buying airplane tickets and flying a plane into two WTC buildings.

What's your point?

[malobukov]

My point is that weapon choice is not driven by how many people they want to kill.

[timelets]

Ok.