Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

tadmjones

Regulars
  • Posts

    1453
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    27

Posts posted by tadmjones

  1. What about automatic weapons makes them offensive, and not defensive weapons? Are you sure you know enough about firearms to come to that conclusion? For example, did you know that the US military trains it's riflemen never to use the automatic function of their assault rifles? It's because it is too uncontrollable and depletes ammo too fast to be useful in any situation. The only reasonable conclusion in this case is that the automatic function of assault rifles is completely benign. Other types of automatic weapons are less cut and dry but it's definitely wrong to say that all automatic weapons are purely offensive.

    As to my knowledge of weapons , I've got like at least a masters in Discovery channel.Perhaps being an indiscriminate weapon is what disqualifies them from a defensive weapon, if by defensive we mean to protect one's self from a specific threat.

    If I had a magic wand, I think limiting technology to say either flintlocks,and or blackpower weapons would kinda keep things even. I doubt you could use surprise with those types of firearm. Its not like you could pull a functioning flintlock out of your trousers and fire, I would have a chance to load too, eh? Heck like I said earlier a la magic wand , just swords.

    Don't misunderstand i really like modern firearm technology, and I think ctizens should privately own them , for sport and defense. I do think however we can in a rational society decide which types of weapons appropriately fit that particular bill.

    Do you have a line or threshold of weapons based on action or perhaps caliber?

    I will add guns don't kill people, people who use guns to put bullets into or through other people do, if they do it right.

  2. All I'm really asking for is what principle you are using to determine that a private citizen should not own nuclear weapons, and why guns are excluded. Is it the level of potential damage, or something else?

    My two cents would be the line between defensive weapons and offensive weapons. In this line of reasoning , fully automatic weapons, I believe are not defensive weapons.

    Perhaps carrying sabres or rapiers was the point in history of truly defensive only weapons, the projection of force was literally at arm's length.

  3. Euiol:

    Most, including It seems,Ms. Rand, are not thinking of the role arms played and play in starting and maintaining a free nation.

    The shot heard round the world occured because the King's Troops were trying to secure a cache of powder and munitions. Well ..not because of, the cause was actually the colonists' refusal to not be free.

  4. Guns and the technology to manufacture them exist, the genie is out of the bottle so to speak. If gun control is warranted it should be in the form of laws constraining use of such weapons. And the punishment should be severe. Automatic manditory minimum sentencing and the like, and the constaints should start with brandishing weapons, perhaps something like 6 month minimum incarceration coupled with confiscation and fine/fee to reaquire the weapon.

  5. Look you believe this because of cultural reasons. I get that. But anyone who predicts that gun control and proper enforcement of gun control laws would lead to an increase in gun deaths I think is letting their cultural biases delude them.

    A laughable source.

    Exactly, this is the main cultural reason for your belief. Ayn Rand's view is different:

    Now is the time to have a discussion on gun control. If not now when? This is a frequent tactic used to shut down debate. - https://twitter.com/...hetime&src=hash People want this discussion and it is entirely appropriate to have it on the day of the tragedy. Clearly people in public office may wait a couple days since everyone's emotions are raw, I get that and wouldn't criticise them for it. But now is the time.

    The graphs on that blog have no source mentioned for the data. Here is a more credible source (Harvard Injury Control Research Center) which has the opposite conclusion.

    I would concede that gun control laws would be less effective within an overall culture of gun ownership. For example if one US state, or one highschool has a no gun policy, then this is not going to have the desired effect since it would be an island in a sea of guns. I could even find it plausable that gun deaths could go up in such a scenario. I am bending over backwards trying to accommodate your viewpoint here, and I can see some reason and logic in it.

    If the USA were to outlaw gun ownership, and strictly enforce such laws. If it were to outlaw gun shops, shooting ranges, hunting rifles etc. If it were to end the war on drugs thereby reducing gun demand by criminals. If it were to have a proper border with Mexico with strict border checkpoints and reduce the border weak spots. If it were to punish severely anyone possessing a gun. If the culture was to change so that people who like guns were viewed as weirdos by society. Gun deaths would drop if all of the above were enacted. Do you agree or disagree? If you can't agree with me at this point then me bending over backwards has been in vain and you are truly rapped in your culture.

    You may argue that such government controls is like instituting fascism. Yet you don't have to do these things to lower gun deaths. Simply select a judicious few policies. Regulate guns like you regulate cars. Don't kill your culture - like I said I get it.

    In Germany there is no speed limit on many stretches of highway. You can legally drive at 100 mph on these autobahns. Culturally, Germany likes its cars and is good at making fast ones, and reasons that it is safer to have no speed limit on these stretches. Yet that doesn't stop it from enacting seat belt laws, or car safety standards. Embrace your culture and your constitution, but don't accept these regular massacres. Bring in federal stricter gun legislation that makes it as difficult to buy a gun as to adopt a child or to drive a car.

    Who would be allowed to own firearms and which types? i assume in this scenario some men would be granted more freedom in acquiring guns, who would or should they be?

  6. My point was to show that evil exists, man has freewill and some men will be evil. Killing is killing, in the case of murder, the means killers use are not intrinsically evil.

    I chose that example purely because it invovled the murder of children at a school. And it was pre-"violent video games" or wide spread use of psychotropic drugs ect, all the excuses that are sure to be bandied about as to the 'causes' of the murders of children in Newtown.

    The cause was an evil person(.)

  7. To me it seems that any justification for anarchism,in any form, is based on the idea that implementations of principles are shown to be faulty, therefore principles are faulty. The fix then seems to be better implementation as opposed to pointing to the incidents of deviating from principle. Which suggests that principled action is impossible given a certain scale, which I would submit contradicts or negates the idea of principle in the first place.

  8. I thought I already explained before that we are all for a government of laws, we would like to see more law, and in fact we would like to see the law applying to the government, and that this would cause it to lose its monopolystatus; and furthermore, on those premises, states or monopolists of law are actually lawless. Nobody external to their group writes and enforces the laws among them. The government itself interprets whether or not it itself has broken laws which it itself has legislated. This is supposedly impermissible under a normative conception of the law, which is what Objectivists take under the concept of "objective law."

    If you are arugeing from the perspective that the current administration(and other administrations say since Garfield to pick a starting point) have operated outside of constitutional parameters , i would agree. That does not mean that the idea of a federal government vested with the objective of the protection of indidiual rights is wrong in principle.

    Nor do I think in principle, would the idea of incorporating other nation states into a federal system be unwarrnted. Take the example of Canada, culturally and geographically it would not be outrageous to posit that in principle the nation state of Canada could adopt the ideals in the US constitution and endeavor to work within that framework, setting aside the idea of local governance. Local governance would obviously have to conform to and operate within the context that the sole function of any govermental body is the recognition and protection of individual rights.

  9. Yes... and the former becomes the outgrowth of faith in the latter. Keep stretching rubber bands and sooner or later some are going to snap.

    I agree it seems medical science has been guided by a deterministic/mechanicist view especially concerning consciousness, which may well be a result of addressing biologic concerns with successful treatments of a chemical nature.
  10. To your list, I'd also add that mass murderers are a end product of a narcoculture. Where a nation of drug worshippers believe the lie that every conceivable personal physical, mental, and emotional moral problem known to man can be solved by ingesting just the right narcotic.

    I would add the caveat that the narcoculture ,as it were , should refer more to solving 'mental' pathologies than biologic eg chemothereapy. At present perhaps crude methodologies for treating biologic problems, I do not know whether or not for sure but I assume these chemicals have little or no adverse psycotropic properties.

  11. From Von Mises' conclusion in Bureaucracy

    "Public administration, the handling of the government apparatus of coercion and compulsion, must necessarily be formalistic and bureaucratic. No reform can remove the bureaucratic features of the government’s bureaus. It is useless to blame them for their slowness and slackness. It is vain to lament over the fact that the assiduity, carefulness, and painstaking work of the average bureau clerk are, as a rule, below those of the average worker in private business. (There are, after all, many civil servants whose enthusiastic fervor amounts to unselfish sacrifice.) In the absence of an unquestionable yardstick of success and failure it is almost impossible for the vast majority of men to find that incentive to utmost exertion that the money calculus of profit-seeking business easily provides. It is of no use to criticize the bureaucrat’s pedantic observance of rigid rules and regulations. Such rules are indispensable if public administration is not to slip out of the hands of the top executives and degenerate into the supremacy of subordinate clerks. These rules are, moreover, the only means of making the law supreme in the conduct of public affairs and of protecting the citizen against despotic arbitrariness."

    This idea leads to sustaining the principles of a government of laws and not men , no?

  12. In a rational society a constitutional govt would be predicated on the rcognition and protection of individual rights . It would be literally the principles. The officials would be the agents that act only those principles. A government of laws and not men. The underlying , foundational principle would be the recognition of individual rights, and the protection of freedom in practice.

    How would competition between men to be the agents of force, not be a government of men?

  13. And again, my goal is upholding and protecting a woman's individual rights as well as a newborn. How late is too late for abortion? that is the question that needs an answer. If something made a woman change her mind, for whatever reason, rational or irrational, not to give birth, she needs to know when that decision to abort is too late, so as her right to abortion does not violate the newborns right to life. When does it acquire those rights is essential to know. When it is born. When it is a physically separate living being, does it acquire rights, and the womans right to abortion ends.

    And added to the legal consequences would be other individuals that participate in such a procedure. Would it lead to indicting sellers of the labor inducing chemicals, assuming they have no other medicinal uses?

  14. I also enjoy the direction of the thread, especially the bit about oranges and what they signified in that context. I am trying to understand art more fully. I do think context in a piece is obviously extremely important.

    In the Warhol piece , I think what is lacking , for me, is a context. I didn't understand his intended context, which I see as a fault of the piece(that it doesn't have a perceptual context) it seems on the face to be images of a very utilitarian thing.

  15. It's just on our terms.

    Apparently we're supplying the right stimuli... like whenever I see a happy dog riding in a car with its head stuck out the window. ;)

    exactly we have a great dog, he is a recognized member of our family. Although he is in the proverbial dog house ,not fault, but its hunting season locally and apparently we have idiot hunters around,given the deer parts he has been getting into of late :(
  16. Whether it will affect prosecutions is one thing, but it has affected people in other ways. From the article:

    What about speech that constitutes non-physical harassment? Eg following someone around for months repeating "Jesus loves you". There should surely be restrictions on this.

    Perhaps on the 'following around', but not if say your boss/coworker/neighbor started every sentence with those words.
  17. While that is true... by using our understanding that animals are only amoral products of genetics and are solely responsive to environmental stimuli, we can and do form useful practical beneficial alliances with them. Seeing eye dogs are one example. Police K-9 units are another. Horses are another. Where I live, people regularly ride horses on the streets. Granted, it's more of a recreation now than when it used to be vital transportation, but nevertheless there is an agreement made with the horses on our terms of our understanding the limits of their behavioral parameters.

    There is no alliance or agreement with animals, just humans imposing their will. In some we respects we describe it as 'humane' treatment, but in reality it is recognising animal behaviour and providing the appropriate stimuli to get the animal to do the human's will.

×
×
  • Create New...