The right to bear arms

[y_feldblum]

Low-yield devices have valid potential industrial uses (for example, mining), thus there are contexts where private ownership of A-bombs is legitimate. In exactly the contexts where a person could own 5 tons of dynamite and not pose a clear threat to the rights of others, a person could own a 5 ton yield fission device.

No contest.

[Free Capitalist]

By the same token, why does a police or military force need anything more powerful than a .38 revolver

Don't you get it Tom? There's a fundamental gulf of difference between a merely a private person and a police officer. A police officer has the right to use retaliatory force as he sees fit. A private person does not. A police officer is a law unto himself, or at least he belongs to an organization (the government) that is a law unto itself. A private person is not a law unto itself. So the government can decide what the best weapons will be for its police officers, because the government has that right, by definition; the police officers, by extension, are merely government officers, and share in everything the goverment can do.

So to answer your question, why does the police need some weapon or other? I don't know, and it's none of my business; it has the right to build whatever it wants. I may question the way it is spending my money, but if the money is allocated then it does not matter what the lethality and the destructiveness is of the weapon that's built. The government was invested with the power of the people precisely to make that decision, and to take that decision out of the hands of the individual citizens.

There is room in the "right to bear arms" for protection against the government itself. However, that extra little principle could be taken too far, and could be taken to mean that each citizen has the right to own a nuke - no government will mess him if he has that, that's for sure! I don't know yet where to draw the line in the context of "Freedom fighters" but it seems clear that we cannot build an objective government and still retain the citizens with a privately owned destructive force. Either the government is invested with it, or the citizens are. Either the government is militarily powerful, in which case we have an objective rule of law, or the citizens are each individually militarily powerful, in which case the government dissolves and anarchy begins.

Edited March 9, 2005 by Free Capitalist

[y_feldblum]

There is room in the "right to bear arms" for protection against the government itself.

The fundamental purpose of the right to bear arms is, exactly, protection from the government.

Edited March 9, 2005 by y_feldblum

[y_feldblum]

Who is to decide and by what means whether a person is rational?

[Iakeo]

Is the right to bear arms a part of Objectivism?

Objectivism propounds that the government should be the sole agent of retaliatory force.

Obviously, Objectivism is comptible with the idea of hunting and with the idea of self-defence. However, I think it is completely compatible with Objectivism for the government to restrcit the types of weapons that private citizens are allowed to own.

Did Ayn Rand comment on this issue?

How does it make sense that "the government should be the sole agent of

retaliatory force"? Who says this? (Not that the "who" is important. I'd just like to

know.)

If I'm attacked, I reserve the right (in other words it IS my right) to respond,

ethically.

The government has one function. To protect "the trader principle". Those who

violate proper trade (use force to gain value) are to be dealt with by the

government.

It is an individual's responsibility to respond to emergent (emergency) situations

such that he acts ethically in his response in his vicinity. The government can't be

everywhere, nor would we want it to be, I dare say.

Is it ethical to use a thermonuclear device to thwart a burglar?

Probably not.

-Iakeo

[Richard Roark]

Of course that might be sorta neat, don't come near my house or you'll be vaporized . All joking aside, I had a short story I was writing for a while about a man who shoots a poor man hiding in the bushes on his way home from work and the man who shoots the poor man is arrested for Murder. Might I add that there is a serial killer going around praying on the poor. The reason I have decided not to go through with this story is because I think my motivation for writing it is propaganda. Anyway at the end of the story I was going to have the Defendent stand during his summation and state why he shot the poor man, and it is the point that Iakeo brought up about the government not being everywhere and the speach deals heavily with the rights of the individual.

Here goes an excerpt from the speach: Note I haven't finished the speach and haven't done any editing on it.

It is because of this right that I enacted the right to defend my life in the way I saw fit because I have a right to my life. This right to one’s life needs to be explained in its fullest as well to give you the jury a better understanding as to why I killed a man in the bushes. The right to ones life is just that, you have the right to your life. You have the right to live that life in anyway you see fit. The right to life though isn’t a guarantee of life or of continued existence. It does not guarantee that just because you exist that you will live. It means just as it says you have the right to life, nothing more and nothing less. Yet, with life one must find the means to sustain this life.

The right, which allows a person the means to sustain his life, is the right to property. The right to property means that a man can create, buy or sell his property as he sees fit. The right to property is the governing right that allows a man to live. A man must build or buy a home to protect him from the elements. A man must produce or buy his food to keep him healthy and nourished. A man has a right to his property for it is this right that keeps him alive. This right, the right to property, is a corollary to the right to life with the right to life being the head that all the other three rights flow from.

Edited March 15, 2005 by Richard Roark

[Free Capitalist]

How does it make sense that "the government should be the sole agent of

retaliatory force"? Who says this? (Not that the "who" is important. I'd just like to

know.)

If you advocate that men should themselves practice the right to use force against whomever they deem to be offenders, for whatever reason they feel necessary, at their own private discretion, then you are advocating anarchy.

If I'm attacked, I reserve the right (in other words it IS my right) to respond, ethically.

Yes. But if the guy starts running away, it would be immoral, and therefore illegal, for you to chase after him with a baseball club and clubber him to death. And then go after his associates who helped him plan the attack on your house, and beat them up as well. That is anarchy, pure and simple. Only government can properly be allowed to go after criminals, outside of that one circumstance when your life is directly threatened and you must do something because the government cannot act in time to save you. All other instances must be left up to the government, in order for a proper society to flourish. Edited March 15, 2005 by Free Capitalist

[Iakeo]

If you advocate that men should themselves practice the right to use force against whomever they deem to be offenders, for whatever reason they feel necessary, at their own private discretion, then you are advocating anarchy.

The use of force is only warranted as reaction to someone else's initiation of force

as a violation of the "trader principle".

Yes. But if the guy starts running away, it would be immoral, and therefore illegal, for you to chase after him with a baseball club and clubber him to death. And then go after his associates who helped him plan the attack on your house, and beat them up as well. That is anarchy, pure and simple. Only government can properly be allowed to go after criminals, outside of that one circumstance when your life is directly threatened and you must do something because the government cannot act in time to save you. All other instances must be left up to the government, in order for a proper society to flourish.

If the attacked-one is no longer in danger of being "improperly traded with"

(forced to do something), then the emergency situation is over, and the "bad guy"

should be apprehended by the police.

If the act of running away would violate the attacked-one's right to being

compensated for the initial "trader principle" violation (force), then all means

necessary are granted to the attacked-one to ensure that they will be

compensated.

So we agree. The police (government) shall exclusively enforce the "trader

principle", unless they are incapable of doing so in such a way that the "bad guy"

would get away (not be findable by the police). In which case it is the attacked-

one's (or their proxies) right to enforce the "trader principle" violation.

-Iakeo

[Free Capitalist]

I've seen you state this unusual formulation of relating the government to the Trader Principle. The two are related of course, but indirectly, so I'd like you to explain what you mean by your perrenial use of the Trader Principle in this context, and where AR said something to support your claims. From my understanding, the only moral concept she directly related to "government" was that of "rights", and the Trader Principle, among others, was related indirectly.

[Richard Roark]

Here goes an interesting problem though, lets say that for whatever reason the Government can't do anything about something. You see my nieghborhood has gotten worse and worse over the years. I can point out to you the bad elements, the people of my neighborhood knows them, hell the hellraisers even know this to be true. Yet they walk around the neighborhood terroizing it basically thinking they own the place. Yet, you call the police all they can do is have them dispurse since really they haven't done any type of criminal activity. Yet, the fact remains that when you walk to get a gallon of milk and since there favorite place to hang out is right across from the store, you don't feel safe.

[Free Capitalist]

That's why you get yourself elected by the citizens as the mayor, or get the mayor appoint you as chief of police, or go to work in the police department and become the chief man in charge of that area of the city, and clean it up. That's how a free society works.

A quick resort to guns is not the miracle answer to all of life's problems. Especially for the good guys.

Edited March 16, 2005 by Free Capitalist

[Richard Roark]

I know this, you haven't heard any reports about a mad gunman terrorizing any areas in Pittsburgh have you. I am just stating a frustration is all.

[TomL]

No contest.

The dynamite would be far cheaper, safer, and easier to handle without possibility of radioactive contamination. I can't think of any reason why anyone would bother building a 5 ton yield fission device. Can you say: arbitrary? I knew you could

[EC]

The dynamite would be far cheaper, safer, and easier to handle without possibility of radioactive contamination. I can't think of any reason why anyone would bother building a 5 ton yield fission device. Can you say: arbitrary? I knew you could

Someone likes to tinker and thinks mushroom clouds are pretty?

[y_feldblum]

Necessary_Truths, you might like to describe the context of your quote.

I am going to guess the context is if you are supposed to form some judgment by a process of reason then the answer to the question "Whose reason?" is "Yours."

But that doesn't apply to the context the discussion is dealing with. It is the same issue as why a Galt's Gulch cannot exist as such in real life, but only in a fiction novel. If only rational people are to be allowed in and it is assumed they will remain rational the duration of their stay, then - as before (the same question I asked above) - Who is to decide and by what means whether a person is rational? Such a thing is not possible, yet is is a precondition for a Galt's Gulch and for only rational people being allowed to own guns.

[TomL]

Who is to decide and by what means whether a person is rational? Such a thing is not possible, yet is is a precondition for a Galt's Gulch and for only rational people being allowed to own guns.

Everytime you ask such a question, you reveal your true subjective nature. The question "Who's judgement?" implies that one peron's judgement is no better than the next because judgement is being made based on the content's of one's mind only, and is thus subject to the whim of the judge.

If you judge with reality as the measuring stick, rather than the whim of the individual, then judgement can be made objectively.

The proper question is not whose judgement, but judgement by what standard? The answer is reality.

But to answer the specific questions: John Galt judges who gets into Galt's gulch, because it could not exist without his invention and is thus his personal property.

It is not proper to allow only "rational" people to have guns. It is only proper to disallow actual criminals from having guns, not people who are potentially criminals. If they haven't done anything wrong, you can't punish them.

[Iakeo]

I've seen you state this unusual formulation of relating the government to the Trader Principle. The two are related of course, but indirectly, so I'd like you to explain what you mean by your perrenial use of the Trader Principle in this context, and where AR said something to support your claims. From my understanding, the only moral concept she directly related to "government" was that of "rights", and the Trader Principle, among others, was related indirectly.

Firstly,... I don't cite others thinking. Neither AR or anyone else. If you see

something odd about what I say, my thinking, state your observation.

I mean that in a purely informational way, by the way, and with implied humor as

to my ability to pull other people's stated "memorized words" out of my nether

regions. I simply don't care to do rote memorization of vast volumns of words.

Call me lazy in that regard. I do. I'm NOT an academic. I don't do footnotes. I

do conversation.

If I'm incorrect in my understanding of something, then I'll know that by the

responses to my end of the conversation.

The single function of governnent is to protect the "trader principle". It is merely

to enforce (by force) any violation of voluntary value-for-value trade.

If this is the ONLY function of government, then how can it be only indirectly

related to government?

"From my understanding, the only moral concept she directly

related to "government" was that of "rights", and the Trader Principle, among

others, was related indirectly."

What "rights" are you refering to?

-Iakeo

[Iakeo]

Here goes an interesting problem though, lets say that for whatever reason the Government can't do anything about something. You see my nieghborhood has gotten worse and worse over the years. I can point out to you the bad elements, the people of my neighborhood knows them, hell the hellraisers even know this to be true. Yet they walk around the neighborhood terroizing it basically thinking they  own the place. Yet, you call the police all they can do is have them dispurse since really they haven't done any type of criminal activity. Yet, the fact remains that when you walk to get a gallon of milk and since there favorite place to hang out is right across from the store, you don't feel safe.

If they are "terrorizing", then they are violating the trader principle, in that they

are depriving you of a value (comfort in your environment) through force (threat

IS force).

They are thus prosecutable by the police agency (government).

The only question is what form of prosecution is rational for these miscreants.

-Iakeo

[Free Capitalist]

Call me lazy in that regard. I do.  I'm NOT an academic. I don't do footnotes. I do conversation.

The single function of governnent is to protect the "trader principle". It is merely to enforce (by force) any violation of voluntary value-for-value trade.

Iakeo, that sounds a little bit like intellectual laziness, because we are, after all, discussing Objectivism, and on an Objectivism forum to boot. So, if you make a claim about an Objectivist viewpoint, you have to point out where it was said. And if you don't state a view from an Objectivist viewpoint, you should state so from the outset, and then justify your position.

You said the government's only purpose is to protect the Trader Principle. Please substantiate your claim, and your reasons for it.

[Iakeo]

Iakeo, that sounds a little bit like intellectual laziness, because we are, after all, discussing Objectivism, and on an Objectivism forum to boot. So, if you make a claim about an Objectivist viewpoint, you have to point out where it was said. And if you don't state a view from an Objectivist viewpoint, you should state so from the outset, and then justify your position.

You said the government's only purpose is to protect the Trader Principle. Please substantiate your claim, and your reasons for it.

Admittedly lazy, yes.

I'm always, ALWAYS, uncomfortable stating anything I say as an "objectivist"

position or viewpoint. It really should NOT do that, as it's not accurate.

What I say are MY viewpoints and positions, which should be obvious, but when I

do something silly like actually SAY that I'm representing the viewpoint of

some "collective" group, such as "objectivists", I should expect people to become

confused.

Silly me.

The question is not so much "where" something was said (as I don't have the

reference material handy), but whether what I said has any coincidence with the

principles of what is being discussed.

If someone is interested in what I meant by, as opposed to where I found, a

particular bunch of words, then asking me what I meant is called for. I'm simply

not interested in quoting other people to "justify" what I said, as I don't consider

that justification.

It's simply referencing a possible coincidence. It justifies nothing, as the meaning

is the important aspect, not the fact that "I said what <insert other person here>

said."

What is it that you think is the function of government?

I think the single function of a government is the enforcement of violations of

voluntary value for value (both parties regard the trade as a gain) transactions.

All proper governmental action can be derived from this principle.

The "right" of property, of the transacting parties, is implicit in this

system. "Voluntary" implies non-forced actions (prohibition of initial use of

force). "Value for value" implies something of value to trade held by the parties

(property).

A government performing any other function is simply unecessary, as all other

functions are better handled by individuals interoperating through voluntary value

for value transactions.

Other than a policing agency, to enforce "proper trading" ("the trader principle",

this phrase being meaningless unless you look it up), and a sovereignty agency,

to enforce violations of the "nation's" individual's "proper trading" with individuals

of other "nations", there is no need for any other function.

The "police" and "sovereignty" organizations are really just different "views" of the

same agency and function, thus my showing them as being under a single function.

Now, what was the question again..?

-Iakeo

[Free Capitalist]

TomL,

Everytime you (y_feldblum) ask such a question, you reveal your true subjective nature. The question "Who's judgement?" implies that one peron's judgement is no better than the next because judgement is being made based on the content's of one's mind only, and is thus subject to the whim of the judge.

If you judge with reality as the measuring stick, rather than the whim of the individual, then judgement can be made objectively.

Um that makes no sense. y_feldblum made a valid point that we cannot read other people's minds and prove conclusively whether they are being rational or not, in every single case. The only thing we can do is judge their actions, which regardless of their apparent rationality may or may not have a relationship with the actual rationality of a person. Some action may make no sense to us, but does make sense to a person and would to us too, if we had more info. Some other action makes perfect sense, yet the person who did it is completely irrational. The only way to judge rationality of someone is inductively, which requires a long life and a lot of life experience. This is not available in the context of this discussion.

The proper question is not whose judgement, but judgement by what standard? The answer is reality.

A vague answer typical of a person who doesn't really know what he's talking about. I don't mean to be insulting, even if it sounds like that's what it is. If you have something more specific to offer, please do; the fact that you didn't is indication that you don't, which is an indication hat you don't really understand.

But to answer the specific questions: John Galt judges who gets into Galt's gulch, because it could not exist without his invention and is thus his personal property.

Galt's Gulch is owned by Midas Mulligan. Edited March 19, 2005 by Free Capitalist