Kate87

Consider: Romney wears magic underpants. Romney is a statist in the same style as George W Bush. Romney is a liar (he flip flops on all his positions). All of these points are diametrically opposed to a vote consistent with Objectivism. Can you write a similar list for Obama? Yes. Obama believes in the same magic desert preacher as Romney (but omits the more idiotic position of sacred underwear). Obama win. Just. Obama is also a statist. But Romney being a Bush style statist (talk capitalism, enact statism) is worse from an Objectivist prospective because it gives Capitalism a bad name. Obama win because at least he is honest in his statism. Obama sticks to his principles (even if you disagree with him he doesn't flip-flop and lie like Romney). Obama win. Final score from an Objectivist perspective: 3-0 Obama win. So why did a lot of Objectivists support and vote for Romney?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-19621675

I agree with you Matt, but food and energy prices (and other commodities) are notoriously volatile, and will both surge and plunge with or without QE. Read about why "core inflation" is used by economists worth listening to: http://krugman.blogs.../26/core-logic/ That was written in 2010 and the post ends with Krugman predicting Japan style deflation. At that same time you had the whole right wing, including people like Schiff and other Austrians, predicting hyperinflation. Hyperinflation was consistent with their models. Japan style deflation is only consistent with a Keynsian liquidity trap style model. What models are you using to make your predictions? And what features of that model lead you to (belatedly) predict Japan style deflation when the printing presses are in full motion?

Come on, no inflation will result from this at all. Anyone who has predicted inflation since 2008 and put their money where their mouth is has been severely burnt. What is different this time? EDIT: I need to clarify. Inflation will not rise above the "normal" 2% level because of this. If it does the Fed will apply the brakes by destroying the printed money (ie using the assets purchased to buy back the cash and then deleting it).

Unless you're planning an armed insurrection what is the point of all that gear? Also, what is the point of the skull mask?

How depressing is this thread.

Why would it be weird to see him supporting the Democrats?

If someone goes around threatening to drown and strangle someone then that is harassment. It is right that they should have to answer to the police. The police issued the kid with a warning. This is entirely proportionate. What is the big deal?

I don't mean that an individual has to choose between the two. Under gun control, if we accept that you are statistically more likely to be raped but less likely to be murdered, this is preferable. Since being murderered is worse than being raped. Good point. I think these factors would lessen the effectivness of gun control, sure, but wouldn't destroy its effectiveness. Yes I agree that if the US bans guns then guns will still come from Mexico and Canada. But nowhere near as many as that are now legally sold in gun shops. But of course there would then be more deaths from people not being able to defend themselves with guns, and rapes etc. But overall deaths would decrease. We can go back and forth with all these factors. But we've not studyed this properly and aren't professional statisticians. Here is a perfect blog post that summarises the facts - http://www.washingto...nd-gun-control/ - Note point 4 & 5: Here is a pro gun response to that blog: http://pjmedia.com/b...-slanted-story/ This is all about being able to successfully distinguish who to listen to and how to distinguish truth from fiction. Washington Post blog vs PJ Media blog? Krugman or Schiff? Most climate scientists or Heritage Institute? Most people just listen to those who repeat and buttress views they already hold. Remember, you can have whatever morality you want to have but you can't have your own facts.

I agree that people would switch to other weapons as a result of a gun ban. Because other weapons are less effective than guns at killing, there would be an overall decrease in deaths. See http://news.bbc.co.u.../uk/6937457.stm for how criminals get guns in the UK - mostly it's 1 or 2 weapons at a time being smuggled. The market isn't big enough for gangs to war over control of gun sales. I grant that rapes may be higher as a result of a gun ban, but murders would be less. I would rather be raped than murdered as would anyone who values their own life. First a lot of (most?) gun deaths happen in the heat of the moment with no time for the killer to make a bomb or poison. For this reason these methods aren't substitutes for guns. In a case where there is a lot of planning, the gun still wins as it gives the psycho the satisfaction of pulling the trigger and seeing instant gruesome effects. With bombs the killer would have to leave the room and witness nothing, and poison they most likely wouldn't be present. Less satisfaction would be gained by the psycho. I can see bombs and poison being a substitute for a gun only in the case of terrorists who may or may not be deriving satisfaction from the act of killing another, and who are doing it more for abstract religious reasons. Plus they are trying to create a general climate of fear. I grant that you are breaking a persons freedom by banning them from owning a weapon and that this is wrong under an Objectivist morality. On the surface you may even be harming their safety if they would have been one of the people who successfully ward off an attack with a gun. However, in general I think the person's safety is increased (see argument above). But to increase someone's safety by taking away a freedom is also wrong under Objectivism. With regards to this morality discussion in general, I don't think it's worth discussing because I will never convince you (!). You are an Objectivist and I am a moral consequentialist. We are both entitled to our opinions on morality, but neither of us are entitled to our own empirical facts which is why I wanted to focus on the reasonable claim that gun control would result in fewer gun deaths. A lot of gun advocates would not have conceded this as being reasonable. I guess because they don't have an alternative to consequentialism they need to somehow show that gun control increases gun deaths to have a hope of defending guns.

Interesting stats which I cannot deny. I do deny your conclusion however that a lack of firearms invites these crimes. I deny this based on the stats below of which I would be interested in your opinion - http://fleshisgrass....weapon-updated/ (green highlight mine & orange text my commentary): The conclusion here is clear as daylight - that a preponderance of firearms cause a lot of deaths. If you disagree you are claiming that the 67% of gun murders would all switch to a different weapon and that all of these weapons would be as effective as a gun in causing death. This implies that you believe that guns are ineffective as a form of attack/defence. Because this position is absurd, you must logically accept that UK style gun control (which is nowhere near as draconian as my proposals in above posts) is effective in saving lives. (I agree that these stats have nothing to do with the morality of banning firearms under an Objectivist morality.)

No policeman on patrol carries a gun in Britain. Some (maybe 2% of police) are trained to use a gun and are part of specialised armed response units. We have the same drug problems yet the police aren't armed. The criminals largely are not armed either. If they do arm the armed police are called in. You should reflect on the freedom that living in a place free from guns provides. It's literally a barometer of civilisation. From the lexicon: A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. Here's my first sentence: "Your freedom would be curbed, but it would not be immoral since the rights of non-gun owners would be furthered." Freedom is not a right. Eg you don't have the freedom to pee on others property. What you do have are rights which define and limit your freedom where appropriate (as per the lexicon's definition). You should review those Objectivist theories of rights you recommended to me! Yes they do. I'm getting slightly frustrated by having to post this again and again. You guys are meant to be the O'ists yet I'm the one who is quoting Ayn Rand at you. Ayn Rand says that "giving you the privilege to kill people at whim" is NOT something that should be done: Ayn Rand Answers: What is your attitude toward gun control? It’s a complex, technical issue in the philosophy of law. Handguns are instruments for killing people–they are not carried for hunting animals–and you have no right to kill people. You do have the right to self-defense, however. I don’t know how the issue is to be resolved to protect you without giving you the privilege to kill people at whim. NB to all: Ultimately I'm not interested if you think taking guns away from people is immoral (you are wrong but you are entitled to your opinion). I would like to stick to the indisputable fact that countries like England exist where gun control is tight and guns aren't prevalent among criminals, and less people die as a result. It's an intuitive concept and it actually exists in reality. Engage with this fact.

Your freedom would be curbed, but it would not be immoral since the rights of non-gun owners would be furthered. I don't want to be near people with guns who can shoot me. I don't care if they are the most moral person in the world, I should have the right not to be near people who can take my life by touching a button. Regarding the nuclear comparison, I am saying that it is possible to very tightly regulate guns out of existence: If you gave a punishment of life in prison for anyone privately building a gun, the only people who would build them would be the government. Each gun would be electronically tagged and gps tracked. Then government truly would have a monopoly on the use of force. Any country found to be harbouring gun manufacturers who deal in non-tagged guns would be the subject of severe economic sanctions. Criminals would not be able to obtain guns under such a system. And the few that did would find themselves facing an arsenal of military might just the same as if they possessed a nuclear weapon. Do you realise that not even police carry guns here in England? They are largely not needed to keep order. The times when a criminal does use a gun, a special section of police has to come specially out to deal with it. You should think about the freedom that this gives the general population. The freedom to not be around killing machines.

I would like to specifically address the point made in this cartoon. I understand it's addressing the theatre specifically, but others make a similar argument. They say - "if you regulate guns you are just regulating people who obey the law, criminals will still own guns". I disagree. If guns were as tightly regulated as nuclear material, no common criminal would be able to obtain a gun. Who is going to argue otherwise? PS - if anyone is going to argue otherwise I expect you to come up with a reason why terrorists haven't been able to obtain parts for a nuclear weapon. This discussion would be fun if it weren't so tragic and depressing :s

Why when you cross your northern border does crime drop dramatically? Canada has the same drugs problems as does every Western nation. Stop dancing around the issue and recognise what to everyone else in the world is crystal clear. I could quote lots of unbiased studies on this issue whereas I know all that you can quote is biased politically motivated right wing "studies". You'll even have a conspiracy theory ready to espouse why its not the right wing think tank that is biased, its the liberal universities! So that's why I'm not going to quote any studies because I think you'll be impervious to them. Also, those of you who think it is somehow immoral to have strict gun control should reread Rand's words I quoted above.

I take your point - somewhat. I think it's more accurate to say that America has a problem with violence in general: This problem with violence is definitely not helped by the free availability of guns.

Wotan, The most a torture supporter can go rationally is to argue that it is correct in response to objective threats - ie torture a terrorist in order to gain information about threats. To torture for retribution is on another level and frankly monstrous. Over 30,000 people die in the USA each year from guns, so it is not difficult to see how banning them would save lives and help reduce those 7000 daily deaths. The only other rich country which has a problem with guns is Finland and surprise surprise, gun ownership is high there too. Finally, unlike you, Rand was hesitant on the issue - Ayn Rand Answers: What is your opinion on gun control laws? I do not know enough about it to have an opinion, except to say that it’s not of primary importance. Forbidding guns or registering them is not going to stop criminals from having them; nor is it a great threat to the private, noncriminal citizen if he has to register the fact that he has a gun. It’s not an important issue, unless you’re ready to begin a private uprising right now, which isn’t very practical. What is your attitude toward gun control? It’s a complex, technical issue in the philosophy of law. Handguns are instruments for killing people–they are not carried for hunting animals–and you have no right to kill people. You do have the right to self-defense, however. I don’t know how the issue is to be resolved to protect you without giving you the privilege to kill people at whim.

As long as America is democratic I don't think it can be called fascist or communist, as those systems shut down opposing views and are authoritarian. A better description would be that America is turning into a European style social democracy with a culturally conservative set of social laws.

A much better way to try and "win" money which will give you much greater odds would be to invest your money in actual legitimate profit making companies.

I think "It is simply an accurate way to describe the state of things as they are." ie There is no part of the definition of privilege to say that one buys into a system of white privilege. Just as if one calls a current system "communist", doesn't mean that you agree that communism is right. It's simply a description of how you perceive reality to be without any attached value judgement. If a majority of participants in private markets are racist against your race, this affects you if you want to participate in the market. You can choose to ignore it, but that doesn't change the reality of the situation.

I have no problem with the word "privilege" being used. I don't think it implies that anyone has bought into such a system. It is simply an accurate way to describe the state of things as they are. The view that state racism is more pervasive and powerful than private racism describes a different reality in my opinion.