Maybe if moral cowardice cost money, it would be less common?
<p>Heh.  State representative Fred Maslack of Vermont has proposed a bill under which <a href="http://www.resistnet.com/profiles/blogs/a-novel-idea-register-nongun">non-gun-owners would have to register and pay a fee</a>. Entertainingly enough, there is actual justification for this in a careful reading of the Vermont state constitution.</p>
<p>The Hon. Rep. Maslack is joking.  I think.  And I&#8217;m against requiring people who don&#8217;t want to bear arms to do so.  But gad, how tempting &#8211; because underlying his argument is a truth that the drafters of the Vermont and U.S. constitutions understood.  People who refuse to take arms in defense of themselves and their neighbors are  inflicting a cost on their communities far more certainly than healthy people who refuse to buy medical insurance (and yes, I do think that proposed mandate is an intended target of Maslack&#8217;s jab).  That externality is measured in higher crime rates, higher law-enforcement and prison budgets, and all the (dis)opportunity costs associated with increased crime.  And that&#8217;s before you get to the political consequences&#8230;</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve never made a secret of my evaluation that refusal to bear arms is a form of moral cowardice masquerading as virtue. Real adults know how precious human life is, when they are ethically required to risk it on behalf of others, and when killing is both necessary and justified. Real adults know that there is no magic about wearing a police or military uniform; those decisions are just as hard, and just as necessary, when we deny we&#8217;re making them by delegating them to others. Real adults do not shirk the responsibility that this knowledge implies.  And the wistful thought Rep Maslack&#8217;s proposal leaves me with is&#8230;maybe if moral cowardice cost money and humiliation, there would be less of it.</p>
