Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by tadmjones

  1. Crow

    It seemed you were suggesting that 99% of gun deaths(which I presume you mean people killed with guns, not the death of guns) are attributed to hand guns and shotguns. I made the observation that in New Jersey it is easier to aquire a rifle than a handgun. Are less people killed with rifles because of the regulation?

  2. More on this: http://www.fbi.gov/a...de-data-table-8

    Best to go to the source. That Fox News article was quite misleading, plus it's the 2011 statistics, not 2012 as the article seems to suggest to unwary readers. If anything, it just means rifles are less popular, while handguns are a lot more popular. Also, blunt objects are really easy to acquire. I mean, lots of people have a hammer or a baseball bat even. The only useful point is that people shouldn't think rifles are inherently a great cause of violence, whatever rifles are considered. On the other hand, are weapons classified as rifles regulated more than handguns? I'm really asking - I don't know.

    I live in New Jersey, last year I purchased a used .22 revolver. It took about 6 months to aquire the gun, after going through all the legal procedures they were quite extensive. I believe I coud have acquired a long gun in much shorter time, so I believe rifles as a class are less regulated from purely anecdotal experience.
  3. Figuring out what life is (e.g. the definition you quote in #7) and how it fits into the material world is a job for metaphysics. This doesn't mean that any inquiry that makes use of this is also metaphysical. You would invoke physics to explain how to design a car and how to handle it properly, and the designer (if not the driver) is explicitly aware of this. That doesn't mean that car design is a branch of physics (it's an application) or that a driver is a physicist or that the same person is a molecular biologist when he eats or exercises.

    Economics or political philosophy likewise make use of metaphysical discoveries, but they are way down the application chain. "Capitalism is naturally appropriate" is thus a better way of putting the point than "capitalism is metaphysical."

    Thanks, that does sound closer to what I meant to express. I should have been specific and pointed to the idea of productiveness as such, not use the term capitalism which is seen as a more formal societal description.

    I was trying to find a better argument to counter those who debate the merits of say socialism vs nationalism vs capitalism ect, as if one need only pick one and go with it, as opposed to recognizing why only one(capitalism) is appropriate.

  4. I was going to weigh in on that as well: you can't blame drugs per se.

    First, attributing a casual relationship between the drugs and kids like the CT shooter is bad science: correlation does not imply causality. You will probably also find that a lot more people who are on heart medication get heart attacks, for instance. Without context this data is meaningless.

    Second, as the poster before implied, there are a lot of drugs and a lot of treatments treating a lot of different mental problems. It's improper to lump them all together.

    Third, medical treatments are not an exact science in that there is complexity in the human body that is currently beyond our ability to predict. We try our best to predict everything we can, but there are so many variables that we will invariably get things wrong occasionally.

    People looking for the "silver bullet" solution to this tragedy are going to be disappointed. Sometimes things just plain suck, and there's nothing you can do about it.

    There are things that we know partially contributed to the tragedy, including:

    1. Mental illness, and perhaps poor treatment, and perhaps poorly prescribed drugs.

    which it seems may be common occurences as it applies to 'mass shootings'

    2. Poorly prepared parent(s); lack of resources/visibility into the child's problems (i.e. this boy, "fell through the cracks" somehow).

    if a crack was fallen through , what specifically were the bordering areas made of? we have in place a 'system' that oversees all individuals in society and when they veer near the edge they are prodded back into the safe areas? how many people does this wonderful agency employ?

    3. The ubiquitous availability of extremely deadly weapons.

    like the assault style weapons at our local 7/11? ubiquitous my ass. could perhaps this same incident have occured if the shooter had obtain an antique shootgun , yeah probably

    4. Fox News, and the continual promises that the End is Nigh because a Democrat got elected, fostering the entire ridiculous "prepper" movement of which this boy's mother was a part.

    Fox is responsible for violence , hmm, all I know is some of those ladies(commentators, reporters whatever the term 'specially at like 5 pm) are kinda cute

    None of these factors can be "fixed" and all of them are extremely complex problems in their own right. Even if they were magically fixed we still might have witnessed this tragedy.

  5. This is a question of linguistics. The group of people who deal with legislation called government. Call them " council" or " Elders" or what you wish if you don't like " government".

    Or as I mentioned in another thread , the idea of bureaucracy. Objective laws would be the governing principles and the agents hired, or elected would execute the functions of the government based on strict adherence as to what the law states.
  6. I don't know if life is metaphysical. In fact I'm not even clear as to what the statement means, though some possiblities come to mind. What do you mean by "life"? What do you mean by "metaphysical"?

    By life I meant self-generated, self-sustaining action; the difference between animate and inanimate matter.

    And by metaphysical I mean that which is given, those things in the universe that just 'are'.

    It is a topic I have been pondering , although I think I am having a hard time articulating exactly what I mean to ask.

    As to the what I meant about capitalism, it was more along the lines that self-generated and self-sustaining actions require a kind of economy of energy, ie rabbits would not be if they expended more caloric energy finding and eating carrots than the amount of caloric energy they receive from the eating of carrots. The same would apply to human action, capitalism is based on economy of action, capital is the wealth created by man beyond sustanance.

    Although I must admit that at the time of the original post, my thinking may have been lets say heightened by holiday merriment and libation, perhaps keyboards should have breathalizers;)

  7. Of course you don't. The US military and military contractors won't sell advanced, functional weaponry to private citizens (they destroy it), but there is no ban on commissioning military grade weapons (tanks, armored vehicles, etc., for instance, including armed and fully functional ones) from private manufacturers. The ownership of such weapons is of course subject to federal licensing/taxation and local laws, and ammo for them must be registered individually, on a "per round" basis, but they can be legally owned.

    I've even seen such weapons on TV (Mythbusters emptied out several thousand rounds from a big ass vehicle mounted machine gun, for instance, that was clearly privately owned).

    Wouldn't it be great if Mythbusters offered a program similar to the Nascar camps? For a fee come and play around with our shit for like a week, let's see what we can blow up.
  8. Piers used to be editor of the left wing tabloid The Mirror, which pedals the kind of garbage that should disqualify someone from journalism. Why on Earth CNN would want him as a host is beyond me? One thing is for sure, Britain would not have him back if he was deported! :P

    Obviously CNN wanted him, why do you think?(sorry didn't mean to get metaphysical) why do you think CNN wanted to hire him?
  9. You made an excellent point.

    I served in the Military so I know by personal experience that they are generally like me. So what would determine the response is whether a citizen uprising is just or unjust.

    My son is going to be a Marine next year and I have confidence that the same ethos is 'in play'. Thank You for service Moralist, a personal thanks not obligatory.

  10. As far as I know these three are the main respected economists who argued for radical capitalism. They all won Nobel prizes and they were all highly respected amongst their peers. You could include people like George Reisman or 100 other economists, but I would say they are in a lower intellectual league than these three. These three essentially influenced the development of the 20th century and beyond.

    Are you saying that most state economic planners of the 20th century were trying to implement these economists' theories, I seem to think they more aspire to have the Keynesian view as reality.

    A principled arugement about proper governments would focus on whether a given 'system' was collectivist or not. Governments that recognize individual rights are the only proper kinds of governments.

  11. Damn straight! There's no possible scenario under which this woman chose to wear this "necklace":


    if this is a poll, my answer is probably real. which given today's 'day and age' is sayin' sumptin

    I would like to add here, that as far as I know, there is no casual link between appreciaction and degradation nor should there be.

  12. Yes, but .... There have been various "Million Man March"es upon Washington D.C. called by various protest groups. Now stretch your mind a bit and imagine someone calling for a "Million Rifle March" on Washington.

    That would be a huge problem for law enforcement and very dangerous for all involved, and I hope I never see it.

    Is 'Washington DC' so sacrosanct ?

    I too hope to not see anything anyting like that come to pass, but it could be warranted. Not currently but not an impossibility.

  13. The UK has an "unwritten constitution" although much of the constitution is written such as Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, Habeas Corpus etc. But if Parliament wants to do something, then it cannot be deemed unconstitutional. So I would probably agree that the UK's "constitution" isn't really one.

    Ok as to constitution and rational foundations for government, what about the idea that in one society is seems the individuals are comfortable being 'told' what to do?

    There are certainly those in this country that would point out that the impressions one gleans about America from our own media is somewhat slanted I wonder what kind of impression those 'abroad' get from viewing our own media and how their media may slant the picture, as it were.

    I am sure, thought not to bring the specific issue up for debate in this thread, you are aware of the contentious nature of the debate as it concerns healthcare reform. It is not because as Americans we are against 'health' the issues invovled are more profound then that, do you have a sense of that? The same passions are reflected in our ideas of what constitutes rational personal protection.

    Our own poloticians deride a segment of population as being motivated by their connections to their 'guns and Bibles' , as an atheist and an American I would like to think I would come to those peoples' aid if either their guns or Bibles were to be threatened to be taken from them.

  14. Your constitution is flawed. Get over it and get it amended! Solving government tyranny which has a modern Army behind it, with civilian gun ownership is extremely impractical to say the least.

    So the practical solution is to knuckle under to tyranny, to what end?

    As far as I understand the British have no constitution(in the sense of a constitution being the foundation of the government), and have allowed personal protection to be deemed beyond the individual's choice in the realm of firearms.

  15. To add to Spiral Architect's #3 Helen Keller

    Education or the gaining of knowledge is done(accomplished) by each individual . Teachers or their product" education " is not well understood from this perspective.

    Teachers teach, students learn(or not), while having a teacher makes learning easier it isn't necessary.

    As to public education in America with Jefferson and his contemporaries' opinions on the matter , I think , were motivated by the importance they placed on books, the expense and rarity of them specifically. If somehow the internet, or the dissemination of information were in their time as 'cheap' as it is today, their opinions about the state's role in education may well have been different.

  • Create New...