Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by tadmjones

  1. 7 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

    What evidence do you have that this has happened?

    Why should they?

    People who died and had a positive test for covid were listed as a covid death. No one ever said that wasn’t SOP here in the States. You assumed the tally was kept otherwise ? Based on what ? 

    The total US death count includes those that died with covid , I doubt will may ever get a number that reflects accurately those who died from covid.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  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.





    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. 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 ?


  7. 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 ? 

  8. 1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

    What exactly did he say, and in what context?

    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 .

  9. "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.

  10. IF it were shown that the election results were manipulated and that Trump in fact was elected, IF that were shown to be true, why would that situation necessitate an 'armed insurrection' ? How could a call for 'reinstatement' be labeled  a rebellion ?

    Maintaining the Biden administration in the face of factual evidence of fraud would be acting in defense of liberty?

    Absent proven fraud , Biden is literally the figurehead of a corrupt establishment ( tech, media, federal bureaucrats) pushing a leftist ideology in order to maintain the globalist corporate interests.


  11. As long as we are talking about brute force things, how about dropping icy and metallic rocks on the Moon or Mars and go from there ?


    ps re sci fi , Neal Stephenson's Seven Eves is all about playing with orbital mechanics and fun with big floating rocks .

  • Create New...