Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

tadmjones

Regulars
  • Posts

    1164
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20

tadmjones last won the day on December 13 2020

tadmjones had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • School or University
    na

Recent Profile Visitors

5133 profile views

tadmjones's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (6/7)

57

Reputation

  1. The Cuban government censors speech that goes against the party line. How is that different from what Twitterbook does in the US? Anti government -agenda , anti power structure speech is in both cases throttled , muzzled. I’d say they are of the same kind , but the reach , the degree varies given different internal conditions. The government in the US is making plans to further their reach by asking for regulation of SMS messaging. The only place a trajectory of this sort leads is a place where ‘everything’ is censorship.
  2. I tried to edit post to include the phrase “ under current jurisprudence” I do agree Coke can do as Coke pleases in a free market , as long as their actions do not violate individual rights. Given the level of government influence in today’s ‘market’ , big tech , for lack of a better term, has been given the ability to operate with a different hand . The idea of a public market has not been evenly followed. But such is the nature of political pull and why it is so toxic to the idea of a rational society.
  3. So Coca-Cola could and should be allowed to ban the use of its product to homosexuals or whites ?
  4. Good question, DC v. Heller means , currently, SCOTUS holds that the right to keep and bear arms is vested in individuals , but allows for constitutional regulation. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment I haven't looked too deeply into the various legal arguments and legal theory surrounding the Amendment, but I wager it has to do with the 'commas' and wording "..necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms , shall not be infringed" . But to me, it 'feels' like, the intent was to allow for militias as a government function of the individual states ( as protection against federalized encroachment and to secure themselves against possible actions from other free states) , and including the right of individuals to own fire arms, because of the use of the words 'free state' and subsequently the use of the word 'people'. The phrase 'shall not be infringed' implies they viewed possession of fire arms as a 'natural' right.
  5. I’ve also always assumed the intent of the phrasing meant the militias would be funded by the separate states. Was there ever a period where the states had a tradition of militia as regular intrastate function? Ive never looked into that aspect of US military history, but again assumed the practice was common mostly from reflecting on the naming of units in say Civil War histories.
  6. The Soviet system didn’t atrophy ? The breakup was precipitated by armed citizenry revolution?
  7. Has it ever been the case that ordinary citizens could overthrow a government without a military force? The founders recognized that aspect of societal structure , no? That is what was meant about state militias , allowing the individual sovereign states the ability to defend from encroachment of the federalized forces , yes ?
  8. He was talking about how there has always been a limitation on weapons since the inception of the 2nd amendment, and that his administration would have a zero tolerance policy toward gun show dealers who willfully violate existing existing laws and regulations. He started with the admonition that if you are going to come after the government you need F15s and nuclear weapons. He framed his remarks as a response to hypothetical gun regulation resistance at the outset of the comments with a tried but jumbled Jefferson quote about the tree of liberty. So his remarks were aimed at people who think American patriotism consists at least in part of the recognition that the right to keep and bear arms is an essential component of a nation of free individuals. I take those remarks from a sitting President to be rather authoritarian and frankly chilling. What rational person would not agree that criminals should not be given easy access to firearms , who is the threat aimed at? What is the need to preface remarks in such a manner ? And to whom are they aimed , the President routinely threatens his fellow citizens with their own military ? No more posse comitatus? Gun show licensing is his Rubicon ?
  9. Speaking to 2nd Amendment concerns during a press conference “you know the thing .. you bleed the tree uh water the tree.. uh anyway if you’re gonna get at the government you come up against F15 s and nuclear weapons “ barely paraphrasing . So the context was those who may disagree with Federal gun control regulations , by whatever form whether by legislation or executive order will be met with the full force of the armed forces. Being Presidential , Biden style I suppose .
  10. POTUS threatened that political dissenters would ultimately be met with F-15s and nuclear weapons , but any political countering done in concert with religious people would be unprincipled ? Too pragmatic? We aren't 'there' yet ?
  11. When Trump said very fine people he was referring to the people on both sides of the debate surrounding the public display and or removal of Civil War monuments. In that same speech he specifically condemned any and all who participated in violence.
  12. "So much for the property and speech rights of businessmen -- and everyone else for that matter, and so much for the governor's lip service to freedom." In the context of cruise line regulation , are the 'rights' of businessmen and any other member of public being abused by the regulations eg absent strict laissez faire are rights not being protected under any form of economic regulation? I'm sure there are 'anarcap" arguments that could be made in that vein. But given the current regulation regime I see DeSantis's concerns as focused on the public and protecting their rights to interstate travel. And especially in light of the EUA status of the 'jabs', until they are recognized as fully 'legal' vaccines, the argument seems to be that you can not force someone to forego commerce because they have decided to not engage in experimental medical procedures.
×
×
  • Create New...