The right to bear arms

Political Philosophy
41

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.

42

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. :stuck_out_tongue: 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

43

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

44

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.

45

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. :slight_smile:

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 :slight_smile:

46

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.