When your handlers have to immediately come out and explain your comments, it proves first you lack ability to articulate and secondly it reveals your core belief systems / motives.
What a circus! jtl, 419
When Colbert asked the Governor if the Constitution implied a national right to gun ownership, Bush seemed to indicate that he believed each state had the right to legislate gun ownership as they see fit.
Jeb Bush: No. Not necessarily…There’s a 10th amendment to our country, the Bill of Rights has a 10th amendment that says powers are given to the states to create policy, and the federal government is not the end all and be all. That’s an important value for this country, and it’s an important federalist system that works quite well.
After the story broke, the Bush campaign contacted the Daily Caller to explain that Bush is a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment and that he wasn’t trying to argue that states have the right to limit the 2nd Amendment.
Governor Bush is a strong 2nd amendment advocate and reiterated his view that the federal government should not be passing new gun control laws. He believes in states rights and as Governor of Florida he used the 10th Amendment to expand gun rights with a “Six Pack of Freedom” bill and received an A+ ratings from the NRA.
While I appreciate what Governor Bush was trying to say in the interview, that the states are supposed to have as much power as the federal government (thus creating our federal system), on this issue, he is wrong. See, that’s the whole point of the Bill of Rights. It’s an enumeration of our specific rights that the federal government AND the states must respect. If the 2nd Amendment did not exist… then his 10th Amendment argument would make sense.
Colbert wasn’t asking if the government could expand gun rights, he was saying that since the right to gun ownership is nationally mandated so too should gun laws be nationally mandated.
While Jeb tries to use a states-right argument here, he should have simply turned Colbert’s argument back on itself. Because the Constitution mandates the right to gun ownership, this means that the federal government (and the state governments) have no right legislating against gun ownership. If we can’t trust Jeb to counter a simple and easily refuted attack on the 2nd Amendment, how can we trust him with more complex issues?
Murray N. Rothbard was the father of what some call Radical Libertarianism or Anarcho-Capitalism which Hans-Hermann Hoppe described as “Rothbard’s unique contribution to the rediscovery of property and property rights as the common foundation of both economics and political philosophy, and the systematic reconstruction and conceptual integration of modern, marginalist economics and natural-law political philosophy into a unified moral science: libertarianism.”
This book applies the principles of this “unified moral science” to environmental and natural resource management issues.
The book started out life as an assigned reading list for a university level course entitled Environmental and Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View.
As I began to prepare to teach the course, I quickly saw that there was a plethora of textbooks suitable for universal level courses dealing with environmental and natural resource economics. The only problem was that they were all based in mainstream neo-classical (or Keynesian) theory. I could find no single collection of material comprising a comprehensive treatment of environmental and natural resource economics based on Austrian Economic Theory.
However, I was able to find a large number of essays, monographs, papers delivered at professional meetings and published from a multitude of sources. This book is the result. It is composed of a collection of research reports and essays by reputable scientists, economists, and legal experts as well as private property and free market activists.
The book is organized into seven parts: I. Environmentalism: The New State Religion; II. The New State Religion Debunked; III. Introduction to Environmental and Natural Resource Economics; IV. Interventionism: Law and Regulation; V. Pollution and Recycling; VI. Property Rights: Planning, Zoning and Eminent Domain; and VII. Free Market Conservation. It also includes an elaborate Bibliography, References and Recommended Reading section including an extensive Annotated Bibliography of related and works on the subject.
The intellectual level of the individual works ranges from quite scholarly to informed editorial opinion.