**Note** The following is a piece that was published in the Lansing State Journal. Unfortunately it looks like it was taken down from their site (not sure why if it actually got published - buyers remorse?). Regardless, it was essentially printed verbatim.
Given recent events, it's not surprising that gun control is once again a hot topic in the media. One side claims that more people should be armed, with a synergistic call for banishing of no-carry zones. The other side claims that "assault weapons" need to be abolished, along with the cry for more background checks in tandem. Of course, let's not forget something that everyone can agree on - keeping firearms out of the hands of felons! Right?
Now that you've read the opening paragraph, I'll let you in on a little secret - the topic that really requires examination is that of liberty in a more generalized context.
The idea of prohibiting select demographics from certain activities is apropos to more than the firearms debate. After all, we can also agree that sex offenders shouldn't be allowed to live within a certain distance of schools, can't we?
Actually, I would highly disagree.
I'll be blunt: If we can't trust an individual to partake in all of their liberties, while not affecting those of others, they should be trusted with none, and locked up. If we take the stance that those released from confinement after serving their prison sentence should be restricted in their liberties, where do we draw the line? Rather, where do we draw the virtually infinite number of lines?
Should we require background checks prior to allowing access to the Internet? "Preposterous!" you might shout at the screen, spilling coffee all over your keyboard and localized copy of literature du jour. Is it, though?
After all, nowadays it really isn't hard to fire up a slew of virtualized servers and perform a distributed denial of service attack against someone. Such an attack could be used, for example, to destroy someone's online business. If we could even save one business, wouldn't Internet regulation be worth it? Where have I heard that before..
Let's apply the same theory to securities. Shouldn't we ensure that those participating in the various markets aren't dangerous? After all, we can't have the small time investor left holding the bag by those who might paint the tape!
It can be assumed that some formerly incarcerated individuals (felons or otherwise) won't recidivate; Otherwise, why release them?
Who are we to tell them that they should be prohibited from future participation in the stock market, or from running an online company, due to their past transgressions? With their release, we obviously trust them with any number of other liberties, virtually any of which, including free speech, can abet malicious activity.
Attempted regulation of specific liberties is logically flawed. After all, how could one objectively determine the appropriate level of regulation, if any, for a particular liberty (outside of determining whether it directly infringes on another's liberties)? You can't. It's an instantly lost battle.
If we can trust someone with only a certain set of liberties, should we trust them with any? I say absolutely not.
Unfortunately, I only had 500 words to work with, so I couldn't get deep into an example to further explain my thesis. However, with the wonders of the internet (Thank you, Al Gore!), I can do that, and in the context of firearms ownership. But essentially, bottom line up front, I argue that we shouldn't even worry about background checks or licensing of firearms. So let me use this fancy thing called the internet to explain.
In our example, we have Joe.
Joe is a damn good machinist and runs his own shop. Top of the line 6-Axis mills and what not - the kind of stuff that aerospace firms would be jealous of.
Joe also happens to be a bit of a sociopath. Say Joe gets released 10 years into a 25 years sentence for a premeditated shooting. As a felon, Joe can no longer legally possess firearms.
Given that Joe is a sociopath, and will most likely recidivate, we can agree that Joe shouldn't have guns, right?
Wrong, I would say.
Let's say that, with the magical help of the hypothetical and background checks, we are able to keep Joe from acquiring any pre-manufactured firearms - black market or otherwise.
But wait. Joe's a sociopath, and, well, he's itchin' to get his fill again.
Given his resources and skills, Joe has the ability to manufacture his own firearms.
Uh oh, looks like we have a problem: Joe can roll his own.
So clearly, we have a problem. Despite the hypothetical fact that Joe wasn't able to acquire pre-manufactured firearms, he can just as easily manufacture his own.
So do we then require background checks and have licensing requirements in order to possess/use manufacturing equipment?
That's just one example. As indicated in my actual article, there are numerous (in fact, I would say virtually unlimited) other freedoms that could be used to harm others. Where would we stop?
On a counter point, what about someone that may have done something stupid to get a felony, but in reality isn't a bad guy? The law effectively says that even though we deem him safe enough to be in the general public, he doesn't have the ability to maintain the resources to defend himself.
Clearly, the 8th Amendment issues would need to be worked out (and it certainly would not be an easy task, either) in terms of when permanent incarceration should be doled out, but essentially, I would argue that if someone can't be trusted with a certain freedom, because we know (somehow) that they will use it to harm others, they shouldn't have any liberties at all as they have shown themselves to be nothing more than an animal.
On the other hand, just because someone has made a mistake, and has served their penalty, I should say that ALL of their liberties should be restored.
