Dangerous firecrackers

[airborne]

I was just watching news and they were discussing a recent basketball match where a man lost three fingers after having a large firecracker hurled at him. The news crew then showed how easy it was to acquire the said firecrackers which can cause so much damage.

The Objectivist position would probably put the responsibility on the basketball organizers. I don't know if to say rightly so though.

Why would it be wrong to ban such an item(a specific firecracker which can cause serious harm/death)? Since in an Objectivist society certain adults are banned from normal activities arbitrarily(legal ages determined by an average age of full maturity - which cannot possibly take every individuals maturing process into account) so why cant certain items be banned which on *average* will cause much physical damage to property and man.

I think my issue with this stems from some very fundamental ideas which I'm having a problem with right now. I'll try and identify them and maybe you can point out resources(books) that will help me most -

1. Theory=practice - Prudent predator(still not resolved even after reading the thread on the forums), and civilians buying bombs, missiles, dangerous firecrackers or rocket launchers for personal use is rightful use of liberty(theory) which is good(practice).

2. A blanket legal age(which is perhaps set to some scientific average but cannot account for everyone) which I've come to understand is the Objectivist position on tackling harmful relationships and substance misuse etc

Edited November 13, 2007 by airborne

[RationalBiker]

Since in an Objectivist society certain adults are banned from normal activities arbitrarily(legal ages determined by an average age of full maturity - which cannot possibly take every individuals maturing process into account) so why cant certain items be banned which on *average* will cause much physical damage to property and man.

Where did you get that "in an Objectivist society" arbitrary age limits would be imposed??

[airborne]

Where did you get that "in an Objectivist society" arbitrary age limits would be imposed??

I got that impression from reading some posts on the legal age. There was no other solution offered. I'll try find a quote.

David Odden post #4

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...amp;hl=underage

Age is a crude means of making that judgment, but the libertarians would have a field day if a basic competence test were used to determine whether a potential voter is an idiot, instead of something mindless and automatic like age, so no rational alternative to the current system is possible.

Basically, I've seen this a few times on the forums including one quote by Peikoff. I can't really offer an alternative but I still have a problem with this.

Edited November 13, 2007 by airborne

[Guruite]

This is a suggestion - what about a psychological evaluation? For instance, when a person is between some age and another, they may be psychologically evaluated to see if they are rationally an adult.

There could be a private licensing system, that people could take a test in, that would provide some license that would be accepted as proof of adulthood.

I think it would be wrong to ban a firecracker because people should have the freedom to buy potentially dangerous things - car wrecks are more deadly than firework accidents. If they misuse them, they should be punished/made to pay restitution, but owning them should be legal.

Edit: The above post was added while I was composing this one

Edited November 13, 2007 by Guruite

[Capitalism Forever]

Why would it be wrong to ban such an item(a specific firecracker which can cause serious harm/death)?

Because you are not violating anyone's rights when you are using a firecracker responsibly. By the same logic, you would also have to ban nuclear power plants and, as Guruite pointed out, indeed even cars. What should be banned is throwing firecrackers at people, operating a power plants without adequate safety measures, driving cars recklessly ... and so on.

[DavidOdden]

The Objectivist position would probably put the responsibility on the basketball organizers.

No, the responsibility is on the firecracker-thrower. The sin is the fault of the sinner, not society or the business.

Why would it be wrong to ban such an item(a specific firecracker which can cause serious harm/death)?

Why do you think it would be wrong -- it's not. It's the right of the property owner or renter to establish such rules, and there is certainly no divine or constitutional right to hurl firecrackers on private property without permission. It's common at rock concerts to require weapons to be surrendered, because the organizers don't want a blood-bath at Ozfest (really, they don't).

Since in an Objectivist society certain adults are banned from normal activities arbitrarily(legal ages determined by an average age of full maturity - which cannot possibly take every individuals maturing process into account) so why cant certain items be banned which on *average* will cause much physical damage to property and man.

You're totally confused about the nature of minors and their rights to engage in dangerous activities: since we're not talking about minors, you should leave out any confusing references to minors. There should be no legal restriction on fireworks; there should be a private restriction on fireworks, if and only if it is right for the purposes of the property owner. The property owner will decide.

...civilians buying bombs, missiles, dangerous firecrackers or rocket launchers for personal use is rightful use of liberty(theory) which is good(practice).

In principle, certain things cannot be used except as weapons for national defense and rights vilation -- sarin gas, H-bombs. Such things can be categorically banned by law from private ownership. There's a separate question that you may want to consider, namely the problem of uninsured risks, for example should a man be allowed to decant nitroclycerin in a high-rise apartment building if he doesn't have the insurance to cover the billions of dollars in liability that will arise if he has an oopsie.

2. A blanket legal age

That is, a minor is not legally responsible for debts until they are 18, a minor cannot buy dynamite until he is 18. I don't think those should actually be blanket, i.e. non-negotiable absolutes, so if you can establish that a given minor is capable of properly forming a contract at 18, then they should be allowed to do so and hed responsible for their actions. But that is something that would have to be worked out in advance, in court.

[airborne]

I agree now with what you've said.

Any book recommendations in helping me resolve the problem of the 'prudent predator'(I've read the whole thread on this forum and still find myself at conflict with the problem)?

[DavidOdden]

Any book recommendations in helping me resolve the problem of the 'prudent predator'

I suggest first Viable Values, followed by Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics. These do a superb job of explicating the Objectivist Ethics.

[O.K. Stone]

This is a suggestion - what about a psychological evaluation? For instance, when a person is between some age and another, they may be psychologically evaluated to see if they are rationally an adult.

There could be a private licensing system, that people could take a test in, that would provide some license that would be accepted as proof of adulthood.

I can imagine some people in their 30s or 40s trying to pass their adulthood test.

I wonder what kind of tests would be devised in an Objectivist society. I doubt scarification would be one of them

[Guruite]

I think that the test would only be between two (arbitrary... yes) ages. After that, people would be considered an adult (or perhaps mentally incompetent, as some people are not mentally 'adults' ever)

These are not fully thought-out, just some alternatives to a legal age.

Edited November 14, 2007 by Guruite

[Steve D'Ippolito]

I think that the test would only be between two (arbitrary... yes) ages. After that, people would be considered an adult (or perhaps mentally incompetent, as some people are not mentally 'adults' ever)

These are not fully thought-out, just some alternatives to a legal age.

Many cultures seem to have these sorts of tests. Trials by ordeal. If you fail them you are not considered fully human (and possibly became the next meal depending on the culture). They generally involve pain and suffering to see if you have enough willpower/reason to ignore the pain (which an animal would not be able to do) to acheive some sort of goal.

I'm not sure I like the idea of an Objectivist version of these but let's see where the though leads. If such a thing did exist, I think the goal of such a test would be to present someone with an easy alternative and a hard (but much more rewarding) alternative, to show that they are willing to look at a choice rationally instead of range of the moment. It would have to be a lot more humane (i.e., less like a torture session) than the sorts of things primitive cultures put one through.

I remember a story about a merchant in Imperial Russia who would use ten-kopek coins (slightly smaller than dimes, 50% silver) as counters when the peasants brought in their bags of grain. Every bag of grain passed over the counter got a 10 kopek piece in a bowl, the merchant then counted the coins and thereby tallied the bags of grain he had to pay the peasant for. Many of the peasants would simply steal a couple of the coins while the merchant's back was momentarily turned, and thereby rook themselves out of payment for a full bag of grain. The merchant of course was testing their intelligence. This sort of simply stupid behavior (by the peasants) is *exactly* the sort of thing such a test should be designed to weed out.

[DavidOdden]

In trying to invent some kind of "test" for adulthood, it's important to keep in mind what the legal concept "adult" refers to. It means that the person has sufficiently matured that they can grasp the concepts of rights, obligations, and cause and effect well enough, so that they can understand what it means for a contract to be "binding", and that they can understand that other people have rights which may not be infringed on. A 3 year old is simply not capable of this kind of thinking; an 18 year old should be. What the law says, and rightly so, is that -- except in extreme cases -- a person 18 or over does grasp these concepts well enough, and they can properly be held responsible for their own actions. Under age 18, the issue is not so cut and dried. The assumption is that the capacity to grasp the notion "rights of others" is in place earliest, so that from about age 10, juveniles are held more responsible for crimes that they comit and may even be tried as adults. In contrast, those under 18 are not presumed to be able to manage their own affairs responsibly and cannot enter into contracts. Emancipation provides some relief from those presumptions (though it doesn't touch voting, drinking, marriage, sex and driving ages AFAIK).

The only two "tests" that would be valid regarding age are tests to determine whether emanciptation of a minor is justified, and whether an adult with sufficient mental incapacitation should be made the ward of someone else. Stupid adults should not be allowed to test out of their responsibilities.

[Guruite]

The only two "tests" that would be valid regarding age are tests to determine whether emanciptation of a minor is justified, and whether an adult with sufficient mental incapacitation should be made the ward of someone else. Stupid adults should not be allowed to test out of their responsibilities.

Yes, as far as state run 'tests'. But I was meaning more of a license that would let shopkeepers know that they are selling their potentially dangerous goods to an 'adult'. For instance, a person who sells fireworks and does not want to sell them to a minor would require some sort of license for the person to buy the service/ good. (if they are below a certain age - after that, they would not require any license)

Edited November 14, 2007 by Guruite