While discussing capitalism issues with a friend, we glazed over the issue of liberty and its various limitations. A very traditional conception of liberty would be that we are free to do whatever we want, so long as it does not diminish the rights of others. We do not have the right to kill some one because that deprives them of the right to live. This is pretty straightforward. People have the second amendment right to bear arms. And similarly people can have other weapons like knives or swords. There is nothing evil about these things, but they can all be used for devastating purposes. Similarly, nuclear weapons are not evil. But in this instance we say that people do not have the right to bear nuclear arms nor anthrax, or any such weapon. So why do we not have this right? My answer to that was, “my right to own nuclear weapons diminishes your freedom to not live in fear of nuclear destruction.” Yet my right to own guns some how is more important than your freedom from fear of death by shooting. This might be a case of security or the founding of the nation or some such argument. My point is not regarding the second amendment, this is merely an example. Now, I reach my point. Capitalism is not evil. The system does not inherently oppress the proletariat or some such nonsense. But various abuses exist. Fraud from CEO’s like Kenneth Lay. Tobacco companies had knowledge of the harmful effects and addictive nature of the product. But did they do what was best for the society or what would make the most money? These abuses are like the abuses of guns. We punish those who abuse the system. Enron went down and the tobacco companies suffered dramatic losses. This is equivalent to the cases of the gun owners. But what can we say about the case of nuclear arms? Perhaps my rights of capitalism, diminish your freedom to not suffer from the many crimes of capitalism. This would mean we no more of a right to capitalism than we have to bear nuclear arms.
You may be interested in this thread.
http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=2125
VES
While discussing capitalism issues with a friend, we glazed over the issue of liberty and its various limitations. A very traditional conception of liberty would be that we are free to do whatever we want, so long as it does not diminish the rights of others. We do not have the right to kill some one because that deprives them of the right to live. This is pretty straightforward. People have the second amendment right to bear arms. And similarly people can have other weapons like knives or swords. There is nothing evil about these things, but they can all be used for devastating purposes. Similarly, nuclear weapons are not evil. But in this instance we say that people do not have the right to bear nuclear arms nor anthrax, or any such weapon. So why do we not have this right? My answer to that was, “my right to own nuclear weapons diminishes your freedom to not live in fear of nuclear destruction.” Yet my right to own guns some how is more important than your freedom from fear of death by shooting. This might be a case of security or the founding of the nation or some such argument. My point is not regarding the second amendment, this is merely an example. Now, I reach my point. Capitalism is not evil. The system does not inherently oppress the proletariat or some such nonsense. But various abuses exist. Fraud from CEO’s like Kenneth Lay. Tobacco companies had knowledge of the harmful effects and addictive nature of the product. But did they do what was best for the society or what would make the most money? These abuses are like the abuses of guns. We punish those who abuse the system. Enron went down and the tobacco companies suffered dramatic losses. This is equivalent to the cases of the gun owners. But what can we say about the case of nuclear arms? Perhaps my rights of capitalism, diminish your freedom to not suffer from the many crimes of capitalism. This would mean we no more of a right to capitalism than we have to bear nuclear arms.
Why would a person own a nuclear weapon if it is not for using it. And if the person does use it, he will be harming thousands of innocent men.
No rational and honest individual would own a nuclear weapon.
Besides, nuclear weapons cannot be manufactured by individuals.
There is a right to self-defence not mass destruction. Nukes are illegal in a rational in the same light that handguns are legal. No contradiction there. End of discussion.
Yet my right to own guns some how is more important than your freedom from fear of death by shooting.
That is why we should have objective laws. I can invent any kind of fear I want to (I arbitrarily declare that it makes me afraid when you drive your car, so you shouldn’t be allowed to drive, etc.) But the mere declaration of a fear or any other purported injury should not diminish the rights of other people. If a threat (or some other harm) is objectively established, then we can talk.
Perhaps my rights of capitalism, diminish your freedom to not suffer from the many crimes of capitalism.
Not if you are an honorable person. And, again, we cannot arbitrarily assume that you are dishonorable; you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. If your dishonor is objectively proven, then we can stop you from exercising your capitalistic freedom by putting you in jail.
It’s all in the objectivity, you see?