Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Weaponry

Rate this topic


source

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

(note: explosives much more powerful than a stick of dynamite are widely used in mining, construction (and demolition), farming (I helped my uncle blow up a bunch of stumps when I was a kid -- it's way cool). Thermonuclear devices *are* legitimate means of busting up large amounts of rock underground.
Pay attention to the post you are responding too, I said nothing about mining. I am not justifying the possesion of a stick of dynamite except in the context of personal protection.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that a man needs to justify his property rights to the state. It is the other way around: the state must objectively justify any limit on man's rights.

Yes, but only on ACTUAL rights of man, not made up Odden rights.

Tell me exactly what you plan to outlaw, and don't use the buzz-word "weapon of mass destruction". Give me a clear, objective statement of what you would outlaw.

Did you even read my posts? Are you seriously having trouble grasping a list? And I already said that the "Weapon of mass destruction" is a stupid cliche'. I have already said what I will outlaw. Anything used for any business enterprize is fine. Are you joking?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You were the one who brought up the second amendment, not me.

Also, nothing in that article addresses the 'protection against oppressive government' argument, which is the entire reason why the second amendment exists in the first place.

Also, tanks and machine guns are not "weapons of mass destruction".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pay attention to the post you are responding too, I said nothing about mining.  I am not justifying the possesion of a stick of dynamite except in the context of personal protection.

You said that "all weapons that cannot be handheld should be illegal". Period. No exceptions for self defense, business, or recreational purposes. You claimed that explosives above the power of a stick of dynamite would be a public security risk -- no exceptions for mining, farming etc. Illegal, period. Your call to outlaw the ownership of certain weapons and explosives entails that these items cannot even be manufactured and, a propos the initial question, the weapons necessary for national defense cannot morally be manufactured. A manufacturer owns the goods that he manufactures and sells.

You don't seem to grasp the concept of objective law. You called for the abolition of weapons which are not "hand-held" whatever that means (the best you can come up with is "not tanks", and tanks, b.t.w. are not exclusively weapons, they are armored vehicles. In fact it is quite proper for a private citizen or a business to own and operate a tank.) If you want to now change your plan for outlawing private ownership of whatever goods, it is incumbent on you to articulate exactly what actions you believe a person may not morally engage in. Your failure to think through your proposal and say something about mining is an example of how you don't understand how the use of force is supposed to be under the objective control of the law.

As for the question of man's rights, a person has the right to do whatever they want that does not infringe on the rights of other people. If you want to outlaw the use of so-called weapons of mass destruction for the purpose of violating someone's rights, or even using sticks for that purpose, you'll get no argument from me. You have inverted the concept of rights: a person does not need to justify his actions to the government by proving that he has the right to act according to his values. The government needs to justify any restrictions on a person's actions. The nature and basis of those restrictions is well known, and boils down to the fact that rights are non-contradictory. Proper restrictions on man's actions do not include banning ownership of goods which a man has obtained by moral means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said that "all weapons that cannot be handheld should be illegal". Period. No exceptions for self defense, business, or recreational purposes. You claimed that explosives above the power of a stick of dynamite would be a public security risk -- no exceptions for mining, farming etc. Illegal, period. Your call to outlaw the ownership of certain weapons and explosives entails that these items cannot even be manufactured and, a propos the initial question, the weapons necessary for national defense cannot morally be manufactured. A manufacturer owns the goods that he manufactures and sells.
Talk about missing the context of statement. ILLEGAL FOR PERSONAL DEFENSE!!!!

Your failure to think through your proposal and say something about mining is an example of how you don't understand how the use of force is supposed to be under the objective control of the law.

Mining is personal defense? Mining is an example of the "use of force" against others. You are confused.

a person does not need to justify his actions to the government by proving that he has the right to act according to his values. The government needs to justify any restrictions on a person's actions. The nature and basis of those restrictions is well known, and boils down to the fact that rights are non-contradictory. Proper restrictions on man's actions do not include banning ownership of goods which a man has obtained by moral means.

I conpletely agree, but you are confused about the nature of my statement

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your premises are wrong. The government has only a right to a monopoly on exercising retaliatory force.

I read your replies to me and I had no idea what you were talking about.

Yes, I know that the government has monopoly on the usage of retaliatory force only. The reason I didn't say the word "retaliatory" is because this fact is not as important to the kind of a scenario I'm proposing (If you think it is, then please explain how). Let this not confuse you throughout my post. I am well aware that the government hasn't the right to initiate the use of force.

But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about the government initiating the use of force in any of the two scenarios. I'm talking about what is wrong when the weapons industry is privately owned - and what is wrong with weapons industry being controlled by the government.

Scenario 1:

If the weapons industry is privately owned, then it clearly means that the owner of this industry has the right to sell the weapons to anyone he wants to sell them to (that includes the government; though one may not want to sell weapons to the government - and who is then to stop him? He has right to do with his products what he pleases). And this doesn't mean guns and rifles only, it means ALL of it - tanks and helicopters and planes and nukes. Obviously there is something wrong in selling a nuclear warhead to an individual citizen. Obviously, there is something wrong in having a tank in your garage or a stealth fighter in your hangar. If there isn't please correct me; if there is, then what is it? Which objective principle is violated by an individual having an army and an armada of his own? My first assumption was that an individual could, in this case, become a serious threat to the security. However, I am not quite satisfied with this because this is an argument ex post (from which "the end justifies the means" is derived).

Scenario 2:

If the weapons industry is government controlled... wait... Laissez-Faire is all about government not interfering in the economy of a country. Isn't interfering in industry also interfering in the economy? The weapons industry is supposed to provide the government bodies with weapons it requires to preform its tasks - protect the rights of its citizens. It is also supposed to provide individual citizens with weapons for their own self-protection. It is, therefore, a part of the country's economy. Not to mention that it requires materials for the production of these weapons, which it gains from other industries. The other reason that this scenario brings up a contradiction is because of ethical issues - an individual person cannot, in this scenario, own a weapons factory in which he would do things his way.

The government does not have the right to prevent people from creating products that might be used to violate rights.

That I agree with. So which scenario do you favor? I reckon, from this statement, that it's the first. So you see nothing wrong in people having their own nukes? Please explain this to me because I cannot fathom it. Virtually all this person now has to do is push a button and he will wipe out the entire city. It is not a weapon used for personal self-defense. However, it can be used for self-defense, but not that of one individual person, but that of the entire country. In this case it is used by the government, when defending itself from external invaders.

Obviously the two scenarios suppose two opposite things, which are, as far as I can tell, the only possible scenarios. A country can be arranged either as in Scenario 1 or as in Scenario 2. I don't see a middle path here - either the weapons industry is controlled by the government or it isn't. There is no half-control; and no half-freedom. However, both scenarios lead to contradictions - one to citizens owning weapons of mass destruction (which can, by the way, make government monopoly on usage of retaliatory force seem insignificant, or wipe it out with a single blow), the other to the government doing exactly the opposite of what it is supposed to do. These contradictions scream that there is an error in my premises. Well I scream WHERE?! What am I doing wrong? I just can't see it. Which assumption am I overlooking? Am I wrong to assume that it is wrong for individuals to own weapons of mass destruction, or is my error somewhere deeper than that? If I am, please explain why. What basic principle am I violating in either of the scenarios? What am I not seeing? Is it possible that I am overlooking one more scenario?

Please help me understand how laissez-faire should be set up in regard to weapons industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talk about missing the context of statement. ILLEGAL FOR PERSONAL DEFENSE!!!!

Alright, now consider this. If you are allowing ownership of explosives except for the purpose of self-defense, then a person may use explosives for self defense -- because you only outlawed possession of explosives for the purpose of self-defense. Under your purposes law, it wold be legal to own explosives for the purpose of comitting a crime -- which is not for self defense. It would be legal to own explosives for the purpose of demolition and to use them for self defense. It would be immoral to outlaw the use of explosives for the purpose of self defense: if a thug presents you with the choice of life using dynamite which is in your possession, or death at his hands, then the only moral choice is life.

Your proposal is antithetical to the principles of objective law. You are proposing to take away a man's rights based on his mental state, which is the same kind of subjectivism that underlies pernicious hate-speech laws. You cannot know a man's intentions, which is why objective law focuses on actions. There is no law at all behind your proposal: you cannot, in an Objectivist society, make "ownership for a purpose" be a crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That I agree with. So which scenario do you favor? I reckon, from this statement, that it's the first. So you see nothing wrong in people having their own nukes? Please explain this to me because I cannot fathom it. Virtually all this person now has to do is push a button and he will wipe out the entire city. It is not a weapon used for personal self-defense. However, it can be used for self-defense, but not that of one individual person, but that of the entire country. In this case it is used by the government, when defending itself from external invaders.

The short version is that there should be no absolute prohibition on the private ownership of nuclear explosives. However, I am not in favor of my neighbor having an A-bomb in his basement. Part of the answer is via the equivalence of initiation of force, and the threat to initiate force. An absolute ban on ownership of anything is injustified. But some facts may prove that a person is acting to initiate force: for instance, as I understand the details, if the police had been in possession of the facts surrounding McVeigh's plans to blow up the Murrah building, it would have been perfectly right to stop him and charge (and convict) him of a crime, even before he performed the actual act. Simple ownership of an object is not intrinsically the treat to initiate force, but coupled with other concrete acts can be proof of an actual threat to intiate force.

The other part of the answer is that there are numerous non-coercive ways to get what any rational person would want, such as keeping functioning H-bombs out of a neighbor's apartment in NYC. These are issues that should be covered by voluntary means, such as rental agreements (as landlord, I prohibit the possession of nukes on my property) and road-usage agreements (remember that "public roads" are anathema to capitalism -- as road-owner, I prohibit certain kinds of hazardous cargo on my property). I am not at all a fan of government licensing but if there is a demonstrated need to limit man's rights in order to protect man's rights, it should be done in the most limited fashion possible, narrowly tailored to address a proven need, not a fantasy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there is no room for [...] stockpiling of weapons and ammunition

In a weapon or ammunition factory, there will necessarily be stockpiles of weapons/ammo. Would that mean that all weapons and ammunition factories must be part of the government, i.e. cannot be privately owned? Or would it be enough if they were overseen by the government?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not at all a fan of government licensing but if there is a demonstrated need to limit man's rights in order to protect man's rights, it should be done in the most limited fashion possible, narrowly tailored to address a proven need, not a fantasy.

I am all for privatization of roads. And not just that! If you understand the "why" meaning if you know exactly the reasons that lie behind the privatization of roads, you know the reasons that lie behind privatization of almost anything. Mainly, it's man's rights. This same reason is the answer to the question I asked here, only in order to know it, you should know what these rights are - and not just to be able to recite the basic rights (life, liberty and property), but also those which are derived from these. One of them is the right to self-defense. This one gives an answer to my question. Basically, all questions regarding the internal "structure" of the laissez-faire capitalism are answered by using the concept of individual rights. Once you've mastered the concept, you know it all. What is left then is knowing how to turn the "structure" into a "machine"; how to make it work. At this stage, rights no longer answer "how to make it work", but "why make it that way". And the answer to the former lies elsewhere; somewhere in Political Philosophy, but not in the concept of rights.

The reason I'm saying this is because now I know the "structure" of an ideal laissez-faire capitalism. Now I need to set it in motion. One of the key questions I need to answer now concerns government funding. Clearly, government too needs funds; even in laissez-faire, it needs to sustain its army, its policemen and its courts. How do they get money? What are their sources? Are they enough to fund the government?

Another thing is concerned with the structure of government itself. The answer to this also does not lie in the domain of individual rights. Should the structure of government be similar to the structures of today - with the entire masquerade of presidents, congressmen, governors... What about the today's divisions of parties to rightist and leftists, and conservatives and liberals and whatnot? Clearly, they do not have place in the government of laissez-faire. Or do they? Also, if the jobs of the government is so restricted to the army, police and courts, is there room for elections? Is there any purpose of elections? If there is, what is there to choose between?

I'm getting off-topic, but since my original question has been answered, I see no reason to go on with this thread, unless someone has more to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should the structure of government be similar to the structures of today - with the entire masquerade of presidents, congressmen, governors...

Should the structure of government be similar to the structures of today - with the entire masquerade of presidents, congressmen, governors...

I think there should be a President, who is the Chief Executive of the armed forces and has the power to veto legislation. This office would work pretty much like the Presidency of the United States currently does, perhaps with the exception that he would be elected for much longer terms than 4 years--possibly for life--so that there is no motivation for him to indulge in short-termism.

The legislative branch, on the other hand, would be quite different in the government I have envisioned: There would be no Congress. Laws would require the consent of a large majority of the voting citizens, perhaps 80%. The length and number of laws would also be limited by the constitution, and each law would automatically "sunset" after a fixed number of years. This would prevent the proliferation of unnecessary legislation and, if any bad laws were passed, they would automatically go out of existence after a while.

A person could only become a voting citizen if he had the endorsement of seven people who are already voting citizens. Convicted criminals would automatically lose their voting rights and could only regain them after having served their prison terms, and again only with the endorsement of seven voting citizens.

Oh yes, and the convicts would have to pay the full cost of their stay in prison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there should be a President, who is the Chief Executive of the armed forces and has the power to veto legislation. This office would work pretty much like the Presidency of the United States currently does, perhaps with the exception that he would be elected for much longer terms than 4 years--possibly for life--so that there is no motivation for him to indulge in short-termism.

The legislative branch, on the other hand, would be quite different in the government I have envisioned: There would be no Congress. Laws would require the consent of a large majority of the voting citizens, perhaps 80%. The length and number of laws would also be limited by the constitution, and each law would automatically "sunset" after a fixed number of years. This would prevent the proliferation of unnecessary legislation and, if any bad laws were passed, they would automatically go out of existence after a while.

A person could only become a voting citizen if he had the endorsement of seven people who are already voting citizens. Convicted criminals would automatically lose their voting rights and could only regain them after having served their prison terms, and again only with the endorsement of seven voting citizens.

Oh yes, and the convicts would have to pay the full cost of their stay in prison.

This is very interesting. Did you get this from somewhere or base it on some things that you have read? I lose sleep sometimes trying to come up with what I feel would be an Objectivist governmental structure. I know it would probably be worthwhile to read some of the Libertarian books on the subject (ie like Rothbard's books) but I haven't had the time or the energy to sift through libertarian literature and filter out their numerous errors. Do you have any reccommended sources?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there should be a President...

The legislative branch, on the other hand, would be quite different in the government I have envisioned: There would be no Congress. Laws would require the consent of a large majority of the voting citizens, perhaps 80%. The length and number of laws would also be limited by the constitution, and each law would automatically "sunset" after a fixed number of years. This would prevent the proliferation of unnecessary legislation and, if any bad laws were passed, they would automatically go out of existence after a while.

You left out what has to be the most important part of a proper Objectivist government, the judiciary. Once you strip away all of the social service nonsense, what do you have: national defense, enforcements of contracts, and meting out of justice to rights-offenders.

I really don't understand the idea that laws should wink out of existence after some number of years. For instance: should rape, assault, theft, murder suddenly become legal because the law accidentally evaporated? On the contrary, I think laws should generally be there to stay but it should be not just harder, tactically, to pass new laws which might be bad -- it should be impossible. This can be done (somewhat) simply. The Constitution does not articulate any clear statement about what the function of government is, and does not require laws to be proven to be proper relative such a standard. We need a basic legal axiom -- "The function of government is exclusively to protect the rights of individuals" -- paired with a clear statement of man's rights (and no general welfare nonsense). Then a basic principle pertaining to laws would be that the validity (i.e. constitutionality) of any law must be judged according to how the law fulfills that function. Held to such a standard (if we have a decent judiciary), the number of laws that would be added would be miniscule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with DavidOdden. I don't think laws should "wink out".

I also agree with the axiom idea. This would ensure that laws are based on individual rights and not on the spur of the moment of any politician. If this were the case, then each politician would have to prove that this is a legitimate law and not some whimsical idea of his, and would thus have grounds on which he could prove this law. Moreover, working in government would make a huge turnaround because new laws would be treated more like scientific discoveries.

This is consistent with Ayn Rand's idea of philosophy's basic axioms from which she could build the whole philosophy, just like mathematics is built from its own axioms. Just as metaphysics and ethics, so would political philosophy then be built from its axioms.

As it is now, politics is not written in any consistent manner. Every law is an axiom of its own and it is not logically based on any other law or any of the basic axioms. The only thing it IS based on is history of law, with all its errors and failures. All research thus seems more like an illusion than a possibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is very interesting. Did you get this from somewhere or base it on some things that you have read?

I based it on what I see as problems with the current structure of government. I have spent some time thinking about how those problems could be avoided. I hope to put it all together in a coherent document one day and post it on the forum so you can critique it.

Do you have any reccommended sources?

I think it's a great idea to read the writings of the Founding Fathers. They did a lot of thinking about what an ideal government would be like, so it can be a very fruitful exercise to read their arguments and evaluate them from the perspective of 220 years later. If you know why the U.S. Constitution was written the way it was, then look at history to see how each aspect of the Founders' vision worked out in reality, you'll have a great basis on which to think about how to best structure a government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You left out what has to be the most important part of a proper Objectivist government, the judiciary.

I know. The reason for it is that I have no definite ideas about it. I think there are problems with the current judicial system, but I haven't been able to think of a way to fix them.

I really don't understand the idea that laws should wink out of existence after some number of years. For instance: should rape, assault, theft, murder suddenly become legal because the law accidentally evaporated?
Of course not. The rights of the individual would be spelled out in the constitution and it would never be legal to violate them. Laws would be there to clarify the meaning of the individual rights in cases where disputes may arise and to define punishments for specific crimes.

Plus, I didn't originally mention this for the sake of brevity, but laws that are there to "answer a question" would not sunset. For example, if the Constitution says, "The age of consent shall be defined by law," then there would always be a law defining the age of consent; this kind of law could be changed but would not expire. The laws defining the basic crimes and their punishments would belong to this category.

On the contrary, I think laws should generally be there to stay but it should be not just harder, tactically, to pass new laws which might be bad -- it should be impossible.

The problem is that as circumstances change over time, laws may become obsolete. Even if it's totally impossible to pass a bad law, it is possible for a law that used to be good to remain in effect when it is no longer good.

Also, people may be making an honest error when they pass a law. A sunset provision would make it easier to get rid of such mistaken laws.

We need a basic legal axiom -- "The function of government is exclusively to protect the rights of individuals" -- paired with a clear statement of man's rights (and no general welfare nonsense). Then a basic principle pertaining to laws would be that the validity (i.e. constitutionality) of any law must be judged according to how the law fulfills that function.

I agree 100%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why? Why not simply criminalize all weapons? Or materials that could be made into weapons. I mean, unless you can give a compelling argument that you ought to be allowed to own potentially dangerous materials.

Ok so we would have to ban propane, gasoline, stryphome, fertilizer, knifes, sharpening stones, hammers, saws, chairs, wood, saws, computers, glass, alcohol, and just about everything else.

Afterall if I wanted to I could create a car bomb that could level a major building with gasoline and fertilizer!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Why? Why not simply criminalize all weapons? Or materials that could be made into weapons. I mean, unless you can give a compelling argument that you ought to be allowed to own potentially dangerous materials.

Focus: "ought to be allowed"

How did this little article of statism get in there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Focus: "ought to be allowed"

How did this little article of statism get in there?

If you read the thread and get the tenor of my comments, you'll understand that that was a reductio ad absurdub argument -- that outlawing anything more powerful that a stick of dynamite is statism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you read the thread and get the tenor of my comments, you'll understand that that was a reductio ad absurdub argument -- that outlawing anything more powerful that a stick of dynamite is statism.

Sorry, you are completely correct, thats what I get for shooting from the hip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A person could only become a voting citizen if he had the endorsement of seven people who are already voting citizens.

Why? Also, Why seven people? Why not eight? Or six? So only if you have seven friends can you vote? I currently do not have seven friends that would endorse me. Why would your life be put in others hands?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, men of reason do not need weaponry.

That being said, there are three reasons, in my view, why anyone outside of the government wants weaponry:

1. To help them commit crimes

2. For sport such as targets or hunting

3. For the defense of property and self.

The responsibility for the proper use of any weapon lies in the individual, not the weapon itself nor its manufacturer. For example, a person who commits a crime with a gun should be arrested, tried, and justice served upon him. The onus of committing such a crime is solely upon the criminal, not the gun.

That does not give the government the right to confiscate or control the distribution of weaponry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, men of reason do not need weaponry.

I disagree whole-heartedly. Just because you are a man of reason doesn't mean everyone else is. At a personal level, there will always be thugs that can threaten you, and reason is of precious little use against them. At a national level, there will always be dangers that cannot be faught with reason. No argument would persuade North Korea to change its ways. Only weaponry could do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...