“Right to Carry” and the “Tragedy of the Commons”
By David Beito • Thursday September 3, 2009 8:53 AM PDT • 13 Comments
The controversy about carrying guns in public is not new. In 1967, however, the political alignments on this issue were completely different. Many conservatives (and others) objected when the Black Panthers insisted on exercising this right. In response, Governor Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford Act banning the carrying of guns in public. Many defenders of liberty have felt the need to reflexively defend gun-toting citizens at these rallies. This is a mistake, or at least an incomplete response. A far more productive contribution to an otherwise impoverished debate is to emphasize privatization as a solution. We can only find a just and efficient resolution by treating this as a tragedy of the commons issue. Both sides have a point but neither can ever be satisfied as long as thoroughfares, parks, and other venues for town halls or rallies continue to be government owned. Under private property, the issue becomes a relatively simple one: the owner decides who can carry guns. The problem (to the extent it is a problem) arises only when we take private property out of the equation. In the absence of privatization, the controversy will never end until one side or the other forces its will over the commons through the brute force of legislation. 
Tags: Gun Control, Privatization, Property Rights 
David, this is an excellent point, with obvious implications for other important policy issues, such as the content of school curricula and even immigration. Indeed, one of the things I learned from Ed Larson’s book on the Scopes Trial is that Bryant’s position was much more nuanced than that portrayed in popular culture (especially in the entirely fictionalized “Inherit the Wind”). Bryant’s argument was not that the teaching of evolution should be prohibited, but that the decision should be made by local school boards, representing the taxpayers whose contributions fund the school. It was an argument for decentralization, at heart, though he didn’t push the argument far enough to advocate privatization.
Peter Klein | Sep 3, 2009 | Reply
I thought the two major episodes of carrying weapons was on private property? Wasn’t the first one at a local church? Constantly pushing a stateless society to every issue leads less enlightened people to dismiss libertarians as “kooks.”
AntiPartisan | Sep 3, 2009 | Reply
AntiPartisan,
What could be kookier than thinking government can solve our problems? Just how screwed up do things have to get before people connect the dots?
Steve Hogan | Sep 3, 2009 | Reply
“Constantly pushing a stateless society to every issue leads less enlightened people to dismiss libertarians as ‘kooks.’”
Suggesting that government owning vasts swaths of land and running every park, school, or what have you in the entire country causes problems is not exactly the same as advocating for a stateless society.
Forget “kooky”, it is just plain stupid to deny the very real problems that occur because government is involved in every last facet of our lives.
Brent | Sep 3, 2009 | Reply
We should push for repeal of the Mulford act, instead of diverting ourselves into irrelevant discussion of about private property vs commons.
Gun owners should come out of the closet and let people rediscover that there’s nothing inherently crazy about exercising the right to defend oneself and one’s loved ones.
terrymac | Sep 5, 2009 | Reply
“. . . it is just plain stupid to deny the very real problems that occur because government is involved in every last facet of our lives.”
Look at the flip side for a sec.
“. . .it is just plain stupid to deny the very real problems that would occur if government were eliminated from every last facet of our lives.”
That loopy view is alive out there.
Obviously the answer is somewhere in the middle, but “fringe idiots” won’t help get us there.
songar | Sep 8, 2009 | Reply
I assume with everything private, the access to the courts would be determined by your political affiliation, the amount you bid to have your judge installed, and your willingness to pay the police and judge for justice?
Of course, the laws are presumably written to satisfy the highest bidders, along with the property register being run by those who respond to the highest bidders it establishing the legal property record.
mulp | Sep 8, 2009 | Reply
Just what problems would occur if gunvernment was eliminated from every aspect of our lives?
Phillip Osborn | Sep 9, 2009 | Reply
Honestly, I don’t see WTF open carry of firearms has to do with privatization of property. At the local movie theaters which are privately owned, there are signs at the ticket counter saying “no guns”. So if you are talking private vs. public, you still have the same issues IF your state/county prohibits carry or open-carry. PA does not, so I don’t have an issue.
John L | Sep 10, 2009 | Reply
First, to comment on all of the comments, the point of the article is valid. There is NO legitimate function of government in that government owning land – period. Government is (or ought to be) about governance, not land ownership; thus, it [gun debate] becomes about property rights, ie. Property owner decides whether you may carry guns on that property – and by extension, we get to decide whether or not to patronize that business (property owner) based on their policies. And no ‘antipartisan’ and ‘songar’ there is nothing “kooky” about asking government officials to obey their oaths of office and adhere to the Constitution (the Constitution does not give then the authority to own the land in the first place.
That said, the trouble is that the legislatures, courts, and yes the people have lost touch with the definition of “private” – see recent rash of anti-smoking laws... our problems run deep indeed.
PS “mulp”, no one suggested a private court system, courts are a legitimate function of government, and allowed by the Constitution.
joe4liberty | Sep 17, 2009 | Reply