Slashdot Mirror

Except that study after study shows that in places where there are more concealed carry permits are places where there are fewer murders (as well as just less violent crime in general, especially in public settings). In broad terms, retired cops carrying in public is a net benefit. Regardless of how this particular altercation turned out.

Citation needed. I feel like this statement requires more than just the phrase "study after study".

From Wikipedia

Martin Killias, in a 1993 study covering 21 countries, found that there were significant correlations between gun ownership and gun-related suicide and homicide rates.

Here is the link to the study, if you would like to question its methodology. http://www.unicri.eu/documentation_centre/publications/series/understanding/19_GUN_OWNERSHIP.pdf

I saw a pamphlet once that asserted that first world countries with tough gun laws had just as much violent crimes as the US does, but what they forgot to mention was that much less of the violence was committed with a gun and there was less gun-related murder. There are also statistical regressions that show that murders per capita drop when guns are tightly controlled.

These countries also score as highly as the US on the Index of Economic Freedom and higher on other freedom indices like personal freedom. So, do countries really need to be afraid of their citizens' guns? Guns do not seem to be a keystone to a modern free democracy.

You can find countries that score low on all indices and yet have really strong gun laws, but my point is that guns do not seem to be necessary for scaring the government. I doubt very much that guns scare our government all that much. I think Aaron Swartz scared the hell out of our government with a laptop computer. Maybe we should have a laptop amendment.

Gun laws and the discussions of them require more nuance and appreciation of methodology than we are generally capable of in day to day discourse, because there is emotional investment and, consequently, bias, even in academic circles in the US.

Your post doesn't make sense. If these people are choosing the US over the 17 nations that are freer, then by definition, they aren't smart.

It's social problems like corruption, over-bearing governments, aristocrats with no sense of noblesse oblige to the common man, inefficient and ineffective legal systems and other things which make the development of those societies to western standards exceedingly difficult.

Many of these elements are measured in indexes of Economic Freedom, such as the Heritage / WSJ index or the Fraser Institute Economic Freedom of the World project.

Where you have poverty, disease, and low economic growth, you tend to have low levels of economic freedom as measured by these indexes.

I think the best TED talks have been Steven Levitt talking about crack dealer business, and Paul Collier on the Bottom Billion.

All the technology in the world isn't going to fix developing countries where the laws, regulations, and corruption will keep the economies from growing to the point where the technology can be used efficiently. Once those barriers are gone, it isn't like people are stupid, they'll immediately use the appropriate needed technologies.

I suggest:

Michael Walker talking about his work on the Economic Freedom of the World index, and how economic freedom correlates with GDP, life expectancy, and other variables.

Karol Boudreaux from GMU's Mercatus Center talking about African governments bear much responsibility for driving formal-sector entrepreneurs out of the housing market and for driving their citizens into slums.

Robert Anderson on his book Just Get Out of the Way: How Government Can Help Business in Poor Countries.

Tyler Cowen form GMU on almost anything in economics: the future of culture in a globalized world, How to Use Incentives to Fall in Love, Survive Your Next Meeting, and Motivate Your Dentist, and much more.

Don Boudreaux from GMU about the issues he has interviewed people for on Econtalk: car salesmen, signaling through educational diplomas, whether the gold standard is a good idea, challenges in health care, and much more.

Arnold Kling on Crisis of Abundance: Rethinking How We Pay for Health Care

Or a Nicholas Stern versus William Nordhaus debate on global warming costs versus benefits and their viewpoints on appropriate discount rates for the calculation?

Anti-market means reductions in economic freedom. There have been plenty of research like this one, and the results are pretty clear: economic freedom combined with well-functioning institutions enhance economic growth.

This isn't research. It's an academic propaganda piece produced by the Heritage foundation, by people who only get paid if they reach a certain conclusion.

It doesn't give any results. It says so in it's first page.

Thus I, and anyone else who bothers to follow your link, should find your statement about "pretty clear results" shamefully dishonest.

All of these papers amuse me, as they attempt to prove something absolutely opposed to reality:

1) that the socialist policies of the USA and, even moreso, Europe, are bad, despite the fact that these are the most successful economies in the world, and indeed, in all of history

2) that the more laissez faire nations of, for instance, South America, should be quite a bit more prosperous than us - all their problems are attributable to other sources than their lack of socialist or proto-socialist institutions.

In the west, we abolished child labor around 1900 when our economies had risen to the point where we could go beyond farming and we could afford to invest the human capital in teaching children more than basic skills.

Farming is at least as difficult as factory work, typically moreso - so your comment on investing human capital in education seems spurious.

The Dartmouth paper doesn't show what you say, or even particularly close. It looks at one nation, Vietnam.

Child labor is one of the myriad of issues associated we're discussing here - things like spending the extra money for safety and heatlh insurance and fire exits also fit in, though you've glossed these over. But as we look at it, many people say (as Edmonds does) that these kids work anyway on the farm, so, essentially what's the harm in letting them work in the factory? If the families "make it" then eventually the kids won't have to work.

It doesn't change the fact that now we're introducing them to the future: a future where new machines and processes can create phenomenal wealth. Except that you wish to let a factory owner keep almost all of that phenomenal wealth and screwing over the kids. If those factories had to have decent working conditions they could do so from the very first day we foreigners descended on the countryside and built them. If rules required this, the factories would still get built. Shirts would still get sewn. But the plight of their workers would advance far more rapidly.

Let's try a thought exercise. What if we didn't have laissez faire trade - but we did have open door immigration. What would happen then?

What if I make it even easier for you - what if there are magical planes that can fly these families you've doomed to generations of ignorance, poverty and early death straight to America, for free. No free trade, but free workforce. What happens then? Will we have to legalize child labor in the US? Will all of our heads just explode? Or will they just be far, far better off than if they stayed home in your retrocapitalist banana republic?

You want to move the goods and not the people. And by now it is becoming obvious to everyone why.

This brings me to the interesting thing about your message: despite all your attempts to avoid stating it aloud, you inevitably presuppose that labor regulations are doomed.

Yes, you really do. Unless you actually believe that someday all poverty will be eradicated... If I walk down your path:

1) There will always be some nations in poverty. Thus, there will always be places poor enough that outrages like child labor or firing-for-injury (in an unsafe workplace) are inevitable

2) We should always trade with those places (various justifications aside)

And I hope you will not argue the third point, obviously you are smart enou

Anti-market means reductions in economic freedom. There have been plenty of research like this one, and the results are pretty clear: economic freedom combined with well-functioning institutions enhance economic growth.

It is easier for institutions to be well-functioning with economic freedom, as there is less opportunity for corruption in obtaining industrial licenses, etc.

In the west, we abolished child labor around 1900 when our economies had risen to the point where we could go beyond farming and we could afford to invest the human capital in teaching children more than basic skills. Most of the developing world has not reached this level (or even the GDP per capita of the US in 1900).

Research shows that economic growth is the most sure way to end child labor. Artificially trying to end child labor before an economy is ready is bound to fail. There are plenty of devloping countries with child labor laws on the books, yet children still work there illegally because poverty is high and it is better than them starving.

Labor regulations that are premature (given the existing economy in a country) will fail in large part as well as reduce economic growth by pushing production into the illegal informal sector and also encourage corruption.

Economic growth enhances wealth and allows for people to move up the chain of human capital to the point where saftey and obtaining skilled education can actually pay off.

Actually there are a lot of poor countries who have made great strides in education, especially in Africa, and continue to be poor.

The problem is with an over-regulated economy, no combination of education or aid can lead to economic growth. For example, Cuba (with a very regulated economy) has a very high literacy level, compulsary education up to age 15, and almost anyone in Cuba can go to college if they pass a test, yet most people in Cuba are lucky if they make the equivalent of $10 a month.

This reference shows that despite pouring massive resources into education systems, many poor countries have seen a steady decline in economic growth.

On the other hand, advancing economic freedom is a much better way to achieve economic growth.

The article says "The laptop is not 'for sale' - it's going to be available for students only."

The problem is that handing someone in a country that has limited economic freedom a $100 value product may result in that product being sold for $100, as often the return on education in those countries is negligable because the market is so constrained by government that more skills does not always result in more pay.

On the other hand, I think there may be some niches this fits into, they should develop it and see how it works out, just keeping in mind that until you change anti-market laws, you are dismotivating education.

A friend of mine is currently in a small village in Guinea. People are so poor here that there rarely is currency exchanged, generally just bartering. Her parents thought about sending her a satellite phone to stay in touch, but at $1000, it would be the most valuable item in the whole village, and the risk of theft was very high. She already had her glasses stolen!

The only hope is that these devices can help people learn the fact that Economic Freedom is highly correlated with economic growth, and then use the PCs to form political groups to oppose anti-market forces and autocrats.

How much suffering will be endured by less rich nations while we race to adapt our agritech?

History shows that if a country decided to adopt pro-market reforms leading to high levels of economic freedom, it can go from being extremely poor to a "western style economy" in 50 years.

Given the effects of global warming, some of which may be already locked-in, poor countries have just enough time to get the political will to do this...

If you have to ask how much it costs, you can't afford it. If the ``developing'' nations clean up their corruption, they'll be first-world-nations soon enough, even with our present lifespans.

If the treatment is universally shared, what will be done about overpopulation of the planet? With birthrates where they are now ...

If only the rich can afford it, there won't be any overpopulation problems. Right now, the birthrates in the first world nations are below the replacement rate, including the U.S., where we have enough first generation immigrants from the third world to keep us at a TFR of 2.0 (2003 data, slightly below replacement rate of 2.1).

The sure way to defuse the population bomb is to eradicate disease and poverty. The sure way to do that is to replace corruption with the rule of law. Free-er countries have less poverty.