Weaponry

[Yes]

I disagree whole-heartedly. Just because you are a man of reason doesn't mean everyone else is. At a personal level, there will always be thugs that can threaten you, and reason is of precious little use against them........

If what you are saying is correct, then the best deterrent against disagreements is the use of force.

That is the code of the savage.

[James Adkins]

If what you are saying is correct, then the best deterrent against disagreements is the use of force.

That is the code of the savage.

The best deterrent against the use of force is the ability and willingness to use force in retaliation. It has nothing to do with disagreements. When a man with a gun in his hand demands my wallet and I refuse to give it to him it is not a mere disagreement about who, in fact, owns the wallet. Are you saying I should try to reason with the man, maybe engage him in a conversation about the morality of initiating force?

[the tortured one]

"Guns kill people? what kind of crap is that? I should sue Hustler magazine for giving me carpal tunnel syndrom! thats like blaiming pencils for bad handwriting." ~Larry the cable guy

I apologize for not reading the thread in it's entirety, i'm kind of strapped for time and only read the intro post.

"but what will stop people from getting Atomic weapons!" is a traditional cry of the gun-control nuts. people wonder if complete freedom will cause people to gather force which would usurp the authority of the government.

But consider the economics of building such an army. Migs and Tanks cost hundreds of millions of dollars, if you are looking at the crappy end of the stick. To get a fighter plane worthy of even having a chance of taking an american plane you'd need to spend at least half a billion dollars. and thats a plane that doesn't have any of the military's sophisticated classified technology. Not to mention you'll need to spend an additional several million dollars for ordinance and fuel. And after all that you're gonna need a pilot, with hundreds of hours of flight time and training. And after all that, you've got one plane, and one pilot. That single plane now has to go against the worlds most sophisticated technology in the world, the best planes, the best materials, and the finest pilots that money and patriotism can buy. and not only that, but there are nearly 400 fighter planes owned by the U.S. Not even Bill Gates could fund such a project.

Tanks? repeat that whole thing over again, only substitute planes for tanks. You need a high strength HEAT round to even penetrate an Abram's armor. Iraqi tanks didn't take out a single Abram in the entire war, our only casualties were blown tracks and the occasional friendly fire.

Nuclear weapons? If Al-Quieda and all their ties to black market resources like nuclear scientists and plutonium can't gather the resources to build a bomb, what makes you think someone in the U.S can? Only the richest countries in the world can afford nuclear weapons. Besides, if someone was building a bomb with the intent to use it, do you think he would care if the government said "no one can build nuclear weapons"? Do you think that person will be walking down the street saying "hey everybody, guess what i'm building!?"

and finally, what of the dangers of caches of assault weapons? first of all, do you really think that simple laws is gonna stop paramilitaries from getting these weapons? they don't. The only thing gun laws do is make collecting guns by gun enthusiasts a pain in the ass. Organized crime still makes heavy use of assault weapons, the assault weapon ban did little to stop that. And if indeed a group of separists seize property, they have to contend with American national guardsmen, who wear Kevlar capable of stopping an AK round and are equiped with the most sophisticated weapons in the world (ever studied the land warrior project? the OICW weapon has a camera mounted on the top, allowing the soldier to shoot around corners!)

all in all, there is not much a small group of revolutionaries can do to threaten the soverienty of the united states. If Saddam Huissen and his fanatical followers couldn't even dent the American war machine, a group of yokels from Frogballs, Arkansas isn't going to pose too much of a threat.

[Praxus]

and not only that, but there are nearly 400 fighter planes owned by the U.S.

Actually we have a little over 3,000(during Vietnam we had over 5,000). This is not including the several thousand we have in mothball that would be called up and upgraded in the event of a major theater war or world war.

Something I would like to bring up that is related to what you are talking about. These major weapons are created by massive corporation being funded by billions of dollars by the Government. A logical thing for the Government to do is to include in the contract that major military weapons can not be sold to the private sector. This would be a way to de facto ban tanks, fighters, etc within the confinds of Laissiez Faire.

[Scott_Connery]

There are plenty of military tanks and fighters in private hands right now. The people that have them don't bother anybody. The kind of person that can afford to buy and maintain something like that clearly doesn't need to rob banks for money. Who are you to say that people shouldn't be allowed to buy something just because they might hurt someone with it, even though they haven't threatened anyone in their lives?

[Yes]

The best deterrent against the use of force is the ability and willingness to use force in retaliation. It has nothing to do with disagreements. When a man with a gun in his hand demands my wallet and I refuse to give it to him it is not a mere disagreement about who, in fact, owns the wallet. Are you saying I should try to reason with the man, maybe engage him in a conversation about the morality of initiating force?

Please refer to Post #49. I specifically stated my view regarding this that it was valid to defend onself forcibly against thugs.

[James Adkins]

Please refer to Post #49.  I specifically stated my view regarding this that it was valid to defend onself forcibly against thugs.

You are correct it does. This means I understand post #51 even less, though.

[Yes]

One other thing:

Ayn Rand's view of weaponry:

There are only two means by which men can deal with one another: guns or logic. Force or persuasion. Those who know that they cannot win by means of logic, have always resorted to guns.--

[James Adkins]

One other thing:

Ayn Rand's view of weaponry:

This wasn't her view on weaponry. It was part of an explanation on the morality of initiating force in a political/economic context. Specifically, why giving up a proper concept of money meant embracing the use of force.

[Praxus]

here are plenty of military tanks and fighters in private hands right now.

Really? Where? I mean in the US not the 3rd World.

[Scott_Connery]

Really? Where? I mean in the US not the 3rd World.

I mean that too. There are plenty of military vehicle collectors in the US. Check out this page: Five Star Military Vehicles

Here is an archived Mig 21 for sale on ebay: Mig21

Like I said, there is plenty of this kind of stuff in the US. No one uses it to go on some sort of half-brained killing sprees.

[Yes]

This wasn't her view on weaponry. It was part of an explanation on the morality of initiating force in a political/economic context. Specifically, why giving up a proper concept of money meant embracing the use of force.

I strongly disagree.

That discussion regards the use of force vs. the use of reason, i.e. logic, to deal with others.

The context she describes this in is perfectly clear.

[Praxus]

I mean that too. There are plenty of military vehicle collectors in the US. Check out this page: Five Star Military Vehicles

Here is an archived Mig 21 for sale on ebay: Mig21

Like I said, there is plenty of this kind of stuff in the US. No one uses it to go on some sort of half-brained killing sprees.

True, but I wouldn't call them modern weapons(not that you did either)

[James Adkins]

I strongly disagree.

That discussion regards the use of force vs. the use of reason, i.e. logic, to deal with others.

The context she describes this in is perfectly clear.

I was mistaken about where I thought that quote occurred. I thought it came at the end of the money speech. A similar thought is expressed there but not that exact quote.

I still disagree, however, that that was her view of weaponry. It was her view on why the collectivists use force to achieve their goals. It was not an indictment of weapons.

I'd be interested to know why you think someone with a gun would use it to deal with other people instead of logic. I'm not talking about criminals here, or dictators, just ordinary people. What makes you think that a man with a gun would be inclined to resort to its use to settle a disagreement? Even though there are two ways to deal with people, force or persuasion, it doesn't mean that a person with a gun would be more inclined to pick force. I wouldn't. I don't know anyone who would. And I have lived in places where I didn't know anyone who didn't own at least one gun. I'm not even sure I knew anyone who owned just one gun. The preferred method of dealing with people with whom you strongly disagree -when persuasion is not possible - is for each person to go their own way and not deal with each other at all. Among rational, or even mostly rational, people force is not an option, gun or no gun.

If I am mistaken about your views. please let me know. Although if I am, your use of that quote in that way is even more puzzling.

[Ursus]

I still disagree, however, that that was her view of weaponry. It was her view on why the collectivists use force to achieve their goals. It was not an indictment of weapons.

Right, and in fact to have done so would be to have been guilty of intrinsicism.

It is not a weapon that is evil, but only the man who uses one to initiate force against an innocent party.

To use one to defend one's self or one's values (assuming they are good and they are threatened by evil) is a noble act.

In any case the weapon is only a tool. It is the actions and intentions of the user which are open to moral judgement.

For a brute committed to using force to acheive his ends (like a thief or a dictator) there is little one can do to reason with them. The job of philosophy, knowledge, and reason is to prevent such people from gaining power or prominance by exposing their actions and ideas for what they are.

Very often however the only argument a thug understands is the one introduced to him at 1,200 feet per second. The Primacy of Existance must be exlained in such explicit brutal terms to those who demand it. That is their choice, not mine.

The point of the quote I believe is that weapons are historically insignificant compared to ideas. For the source of even the thug's behaviour has root in them. If it comes down to a contest of arms, then we have already lost, or it will be the final event crowning a philosophical achievement.