Ayn Rand on Gun Control


syrakusos

Recommended Posts

Post Script: We missed your insight on last weekends football games. The S.F./New Orleans game was one of the best playoff games I have ever been privy to watching. Riveting game.

I was going through one of my anti-social episodes. I have a lot of those lately.

I saw the game. Unbelievable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 649
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Here are some truths:

1. A gun will shoot you just as dead whether it is registered or not.

2. A person who really wants a gun will get one whether he has to register it or get it on the black market.

3. Gun registration, since it is uncomfortable to the privacy gland, tends to keep the general public disarmed as it tries to keep guns out of the hands of fools and bad guys. But fools and bad guys always get guns when they want them bad enough. This gives them an advantage over the disarmed.

4. Once the government starts having the power to decide who should or should not have a gun, it will work hard to increase this power.

5. How does a government enforce gun registration? With its own guns, of course.

I fully agree that all government officials and law enforcement agents should register their guns. I do not agree with this for normal law-abiding citizens.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The arguments against gun control and in favor of gun ownership create a foundation for anarchy. Ayn Rand - plagiarizing Max Weber - said that government must have a monopoly on physical force in its territory. No one else can have this right. Granted that you also have a basic (inalienable, natural) right to immediate self-defense, that does not create the privilege of counter-aggression. When faced with aggression, you must retreat, if possible. To take the law into your own hands is anarchy, by definition.

Allow me to recast MSK's post above into the problem of automobile registration.

1. A car will run you over just as dead whether it is registered or not.

2. A person who really wants an automobile will get one whether he has to register it or get it on the black market.

3. Vehicle registration, since it is uncomfortable to the privacy gland, tends to keep the general public immobile as it tries to keep cars, trucks, vans, etc., out of the hands of fools and bad guys. But fools and bad guys always get motor vehicles when they want them bad enough. This gives them an advantage over the pedestrian.

4. Once the government starts having the power to decide who should or should not have a motor vehicle, it will work hard to increase this power.

5. How does a government enforce automobile registration? With its own patrol cars (motocycles; helicopters; now drones) of course.

I fully agree that all government officials and law enforcement agents should register their cars. I do not agree with this for normal law-abiding citizens.

Put like this, the flaws in logic become glaring. Such a sorites can be applied to anything.

Like locks, laws only stop honest people. In other words, by codifying our social expectations, we make it clear to ourselves and each other what we expect. A couple of weeks ago, I saw a woman getting into an elevator in a parking garage. A man was already on from the floor below, as she entered, he removed his hat. You don't see that much anymore. It is a social custom, a folkway, not a more, and certainly not a law. We codify into laws what is most important.

But no law ever prevented a murder. Generally, most violence is between family members and friends. Most homicides result from the heat of passion, not calculation. The law cannot stop these. Of the remaining 15% of planfully competent homicides, the law clealy did not prevent the act. Yet, we have laws against homicide. And rightfully so.

Often in "street violence" the victim was the first-round aggressor. The initial attack was warded off and the attacker left the scene. The victim then continues the engagement. Often a mere assault (fist fight) becomes homicide. Again, this is in the heat of passion. A prosecutor may argue that one hour or 24 hours later, the person on trial cooled down and then planned a homicide. That argument denies reality. Hurts and harms last hours, even decades.

In any case, we must insist that unless we are to endorse anarchy,then, the government - not you - have the ultimate power of retaliatory violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The government's authority is created and delegated through and by the citizenry. The right to defend and protect yourself is an individual right. It's all, properly speaking, retaliatory force. This force is defined and codified. If the government stops doing its job then its special powers respecting all this fall back upon private individuals. That may be a special circumstance of anarchy or anarchy generally. Philosophically, moral rights trump legal rights simply because the legal comes out of the moral. If my child is kidnapped, I have every right to find the kidnappers, then I tell the police I found them. I may or may not have the legal right to proceed without the police at that point, depending on circumstances.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not exact to speak of "retaliatory violence" instead of "force." The use of retaliatory force may result in violence, but violence is a derivative form of force. (This could be an example of why Ayn Rand disliked thesauruses.)

"No law ever prevented a murder" is tautological. Murders that happened were not prevented. We cannot know murders that didn't happen that would have, maybe billions, much less why. We can rationally presume laws prevented some by defining social context a certain way.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allow me to recast MSK's post above into the problem of automobile registration.

1. A car will run you over just as dead whether it is registered or not.

2. A person who really wants an automobile will get one whether he has to register it or get it on the black market.

3. Vehicle registration, since it is uncomfortable to the privacy gland, tends to keep the general public immobile as it tries to keep cars, trucks, vans, etc., out of the hands of fools and bad guys. But fools and bad guys always get motor vehicles when they want them bad enough. This gives them an advantage over the pedestrian.

4. Once the government starts having the power to decide who should or should not have a motor vehicle, it will work hard to increase this power.

5. How does a government enforce automobile registration? With its own patrol cars (motocycles; helicopters; now drones) of course.

I fully agree that all government officials and law enforcement agents should register their cars. I do not agree with this for normal law-abiding citizens.

Put like this, the flaws in logic become glaring. Such a sorites can be applied to anything.

Michael,

What logic are you talking about?

I was not making a logical case, merely stating some evident truths I observe, then my opinion. So where are the flaws? Are my statements incorrect? Do I not have a right to my opinion (which I would act on during voting time)?

Anyway, in this case your own method of transposing my statements to car registrations is weird. Guns are made for killing. Cars are not. We transport guns. Vehicles transport us. In other words, you use vehicles on roads and the size brings its own set of problems, including enforcement. You can carry a gun anywhere and a handgun is easily hidden in your clothing.

So your transposition doesn't make any sense.

Friggen Objectivists... Always trying to show they know more than others by pointing to flaws--regardless of whether real or imagined. It's practically a kneejerk. Trying to out-Rand Rand in pointing out hidden defects in others in a play to show off cheap-ass produndity.

The real trouble is, the defects have to actually exist for the comment to be effective or even mean something intelligible.

I suggest more focus on ideas and less on competition in some kind of internal vanity contest that others can't see. But that's my approach...

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to add something. In a society of good moral-minded people, gun registration involves one set of problems. In a gang-infested inner city, it involves a different reality.

I'm not for gun registration, but I do try to look at the facts to get my principles instead of the reverse.

In one setting, a permanent approach to the law works well. In the other, it might be a good idea to look at some temporary measures to contain the armed thugs until the situation gets under control. When armed gang members say they want to kill folks, I take them at their word.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI:

Under the current law, you do not have to register your vehicle if you only drive it on your own property, or, on another person's property with their permission.

You only need to register the vehicle if you are going to drive it on public roads. Essentially, it is a use fee.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael E. M.,

You said "Like locks, laws only stop honest people."

Do you not agree that this is confusing?

Honest people, by my definition, do not 'need' laws (or locks) to curtail their actions - only to curtail

the actions of others. If you said -"laws are only *supposed* to stop dishonest people", or,

"laws only pertain to dishonest people"- it may be true (though a bit circular).

Either way, morality precedes Law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael E. M.,

You said "Like locks, laws only stop honest people."

Do you not agree that this is confusing?

Honest people, by my definition, do not 'need' laws (or locks) to curtail their actions - only to curtail

the actions of others. If you said -"laws are only *supposed* to stop dishonest people", or,

"laws only pertain to dishonest people"- it may be true (though a bit circular).

Either way, morality precedes Law.

The laws of a society are also reflection of its morality.

Morality 'precedes' law in that e. g. even primitive, non-literate cultures always have a set of "dos and don'ts", of values and taboos.

Regarding the gun control issue: it would be interesting to compare homicide rates of (democratic) states with strict gun control versus those of democratic states with lax gun control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like locks, laws only stop honest people.

Not necessarily. Honest people may not even feel the urge to break a law; dishonest people may refrain from breaking certain laws because they don't want to get into trouble.

But no law ever prevented a murder.

But laws may have prevented people from abandoning their plans to commit a murder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael E. M.,

You said "Like locks, laws only stop honest people."

Do you not agree that this is confusing?

Honest people, by my definition, do not 'need' laws (or locks) to curtail their actions - only to curtail

the actions of others. If you said -"laws are only *supposed* to stop dishonest people", or,

"laws only pertain to dishonest people"- it may be true (though a bit circular).

Either way, morality precedes Law.

The laws of a society are also reflection of its morality.

Morality 'precedes' law in that e. g. even primitive, non-literate cultures always have a set of "dos and don'ts", of values and taboos.

Regarding the gun control issue: it would be interesting to compare homicide rates of (democratic) states with strict gun control versus those of democratic states with lax gun control.

Each country has its own peculiar culture and demographics so your statistics will be worthless. You have to go in country for germane and usable data. Take Canadian data then rend out black homicide victims and perpetrators and you'll probably have a big difference in your results. (There is also the problem of various types of data collection by various countries and agencies.)

--Brant

hope I didn't ruin "interesting" for you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant is correct.

This is the exact approach that Lott took for his statistical work in the United States.

Additionally, if we apply a simple logic wherein Bonnie and Clyde are driving down a two lane highway in Kansas and they come to a fork in the road.

Clyde stops because there are two signs...

the one directing traffic to the left fork in the road explains that their town is a gun free town of 22,000;

the one directing traffic to the right fork in the road explains that their town is a mandatory carry town of 22,000;

Which blinker does Clyde hit on the column of the car?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... if we apply a simple logic wherein Bonnie and Clyde are driving .... a gun free town of 22,000; .... a mandatory carry town of 22,000; Which blinker does Clyde hit on the column of the car?

Selene, the problem with this is that the facts do not support it. No such towns exist. The facts are that of the responses to crime the Holy Trinity is Swift, Certain, and Severe. Of those, only Certain is God. Calculating, planful criminals avoid certain response. Severity is irrelevant. Time is a minor element.

This all comes down to a Platonic Dialog, Protagoras: Can justice be taught? That is a debate between Protagoras of Abdera and Socrates. It is quite a read, like an OK Corral or Liberty Valence for philosophers. Everyone wants to see the duel. The two thinkers range back and forth testing, feinting, attacking and defending. Each convinces the other. The crowd's collective head spins. When it comes to technical matters like shipbuilding, we call on ship builders. If anyone who is not a shipbuilder ventures an opinion he is hooted down and even dragged from the assembly, not matter how rich or handsome. But, when it comes to purely political matters, then anyone - tinker, tailor, soldier, sailor - can speak with as much right as a rich man because all men know justice.

So, too, here. Criminology is, like shipbuilding, a science (of sorts), with positive claims and evidentiary challenges. No one should speak to it who is not trained, no matter how handsome or likeable. Yet, we all think that like justice, it is something that all men know from birth, socratically, a Platonic eidos against which we compare the imperfect world around us.

We Objectivists and other utopians are great at positing perfect worlds. In a new and better time, you would never need a gun because the police would always be available to protect you. Defenses - of which the bullet proof vest is a crude example - would prevent all but a statistically noisy aggression.

In the real world of here and now, you are 85% likely to victimized by a family member, friend, or acquaintace. You are only 15% likely to be victimized by a stranger. You don't need a gun. You need to choose your friends wisely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the gun control issue: it would be interesting to compare homicide rates of (democratic) states with strict gun control versus those of democratic states with lax gun control.

Each country has its own peculiar culture and demographics so your statistics will be worthless. You have to go in country for germane and usable data. Take Canadian data then rend out black homicide victims and perpetrators and you'll probably have a big difference in your results. (There is also the problem of various types of data collection by various countries and agencies.)

--Brant

hope I didn't ruin "interesting" for you

No, you haven't ruined "interesting" for me. On the contrary, the more complex an issue is, the more interesting it becomes.

So who is using guns and why? So in countries where many people have guns, but use them almost exclusively for hunting, homicide statistics may not be affected; whereas in countries where guns are primarily bought to defend oneself against dangerous acts committed by one's fellow men (many of whom are also most likely to carry weapons), the homicide rate may well be affected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the gun control issue: it would be interesting to compare homicide rates of (democratic) states with strict gun control versus those of democratic states with lax gun control.

Each country has its own peculiar culture and demographics so your statistics will be worthless. You have to go in country for germane and usable data. Take Canadian data then rend out black homicide victims and perpetrators and you'll probably have a big difference in your results. (There is also the problem of various types of data collection by various countries and agencies.)

--Brant

hope I didn't ruin "interesting" for you

No, you haven't ruined "interesting" for me. On the contrary, the more complex an issue is, the more interesting it becomes.

So who is using guns and why? So in countries where many people have guns, but use them almost exclusively for hunting, homicide statistics may not be affected; whereas in countries where guns are primarily bought to defend oneself against dangerous acts committed by one's fellow men (many of whom are also most likely to carry weapons), the homicide rate may well be affected.

Packing more guns in the States apparently results in fewer violent crimes. This is quite a different culture, BTW, than Europe, including Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Japan, amongst others. There might be as many as 300 million firearms over here in private hands. Some states, like New Jersey, are very restrictive about handgun ownership and transport. One reason I left there.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant, you are wrong. The statistical evidence and demographic data shows that the USA has a homicide rate typical of a Third World nation. Japan has a low rate. The homicide rates do not correlate so much to laws on the books - which people can obey or not: case in point Turkey - as culture. The USA has a culture of violence, and the American south especially so. If you want to compare and contrast and then explain the numbers, look at the

New England states. The Uniform Crime Statistics from the FBI are easily available.

If you google HOMICIDE RATE BY NATION you will see that by any measure, Japan's rate is one-tenth of the USA's.

I went to John Lott's blog. He was touting the story of Walter J. Williams who shot burglars in his home under Missour's "castle law." Lott and many other conservate bloggers took the story verbatim from ST. LOUIS TODAY. He truncated it. Here is rest:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/authorities-navigate-castle-doctrine/article_aa8bd816-50e5-552c-b8dd-2f6fdb79f8c6.html

Missouri authorities navigate castle doctrine

BY KIM BELL • kbell@post-dispatch.com > 314-340-8115 STLtoday.com | Posted: Monday, January 23, 2012 9:00 am | (143) Comments

ST. LOUIS • William J. Whitfield came home early one January morning in 2010 to find his tiny brick bungalow just about emptied out by burglars.

[....]

EXPANDED LAW

Whitfield's shooting of an ex-con who had served time for burglary and weapons charges might be a classic castle doctrine case, but in a recent interview, Whitfield wasn't boastful.

"You don't kill somebody and feel good about it," he said quietly.

He had never even heard of the castle doctrine when he fatally shot the intruder.

"I was worried for my safety," Whitfield said. "I just figured if somebody breaks in, you have a right to defend yourself."

Before the castle doctrine, that wasn't strictly true.

Under the state's old law, homeowners confronted by intruders had a duty to escape their homes if they could do so safely. If they couldn't get out, the homeowner could only use deadly force to protect from serious injury or death.

Under the castle doctrine, people who encounter an intruder in their homes or vehicles — or on their property, under a more recent expansion of the law — are given more leeway in using deadly force.

The law allows you to use that force without fear of being charged or sued.

People in Missouri can repel intruders on the theory that anyone breaking into an occupied home has evil intentions toward the residents, said Kevin Jamison, a lawyer from Gladstone, Mo., who lobbied for Missouri's castle doctrine bill as a member of the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance. The law now covers you even if you fend off a carjacker or confront an intruder in your tent in the woods.

The law can be complicated, and interpretations can differ, but the crux is whether the homeowner is put in fear of "unlawful force." If so, he or she can use lethal force.

The Legislature didn't define "unlawful force," leaving it for others to interpret.

"If the burglar just has a mean look on his face and he's advancing toward you, for most people, that's enough to put you in reasonable fear of unlawful force," Jamison said.

Even if you only feared a slap, that would be a fear of unlawful force and would allow you to shoot an intruder, according to Cape Girardeau County Prosecutor Morley Swingle, who served on the Missouri Supreme Court committee that wrote jury instructions for the new self-defense law.

'SHOOT-FIRST LAWS'

About 30 states have some form of a castle doctrine, according to the National Rifle Association. Illinois has a general self-defense law, but the NRA doesn't consider it a castle doctrine law because it puts too much burden on the homeowner, a spokeswoman said. State law there allows deadly force only if the intruder enters in "a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner," or if the homeowner believes deadly force is the only way to prevent the intruder from committing a felony.

When the Missouri law was debated, proponents said it would help deter crime and empower homeowners.

"Let's let the criminals wonder whether this will be their last crime," then-Rep. Curt Dougherty, D-Independence, said in one House debate on the castle doctrine.

Critics worried it would encourage vigilantism or be used as cover for someone who wanted to commit premeditated murder. Another scenario still feared by critics: What if the "intruder" is actually an innocent person who bursts into your home seeking medical aid?

"We call them 'shoot-first laws,'" said Brian Malte, director of state legislation for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "Shoot first, ask questions later."

Swingle, the prosecutor who helped write jury instructions on the castle doctrine, said the committee of lawyers and judges discussed hypothetical situations that could arise. For example, what if a burglar passed out drunk in your house? Can you execute him?

"We decided that reasonableness should still apply," Swingle said. "You have to have a reasonable belief that it is necessary to defend yourself from the imminent use of unlawful force."

JUSTIFIED HOMICIDES

It's not clear how many times the castle doctrine has been used as a defense in Missouri. The real effect, Swingle said, is likely in cases never filed by prosecutors.

In 2008, Missouri's castle doctrine faced its first test when a Kirksville woman fatally shot a man who crawled through her window in violation of a restraining order. After some local discussion about whether charges were warranted, it was Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster who made the call: No crime was committed. The woman was justified to shoot under the castle doctrine.

Prosecutors did file charges after a 2008 shooting in a St. Louis home but couldn't get a conviction.

They pressed a case against a woman who, during a fight over a bag of fast food, fired a shot at a man who was dating her niece. The woman missed, and instead hit the niece, who died.

Prosecutors said the woman was angry. The judge was convinced she was afraid of the man and found her warranted in using deadly force under the castle doctrine, and not guilty even though she had killed the wrong person with that force.

In a case earlier in 2011, a man broke into his ex-girlfriend's St. Louis home and tried to attack her, according to police. Another man who was also in the home came to the woman's aid and pointed a gun at the intruder, Emmett Terry, but didn't shoot.

Instead, he handed the gun over to the woman, who pointed it at Terry as he stood with his back to a wall, according to police. The woman's friend helped her steady the gun and point it at Terry.

"I told you if you came back, I was gonna kill you," she said before fatally shooting him, according to police reports.

St. Louis police thought the killing of Terry in April was a crime and sought second-degree murder charges against the woman and the man. But prosecutors declined to file them because the shooting could be justified under the castle doctrine.

The Associated Press and Christine Byers of the Post-Dispatch contributed to this report.

Copyright 2012 STLtoday.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/authorities-navigate-castle-doctrine/article_aa8bd816-50e5-552c-b8dd-2f6fdb79f8c6.html#ixzz1kQE1cf6U

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/authorities-navigate-castle-doctrine/article_aa8bd816-50e5-552c-b8dd-2f6fdb79f8c6.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks:

"I was worried for my safety," Whitfield said. "I just figured if somebody breaks in, you have a right to defend yourself."

This common sense rule predates any statutory scheme developed by any legislature.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks: "I was worried for my safety," Whitfield said. "I just figured if somebody breaks in, you have a right to defend yourself." This common sense rule predates any statutory scheme developed by any legislature. Adam

"William J. Whitfield came home early one January morning in 2010 to find his tiny brick bungalow just about emptied out by burglars."

He was not at home. He was not physically threatened. Generally (generally being what it is) burglars are largely non-confrontational.

"He knew they would be back. So, he called police to report the burglary, but he also armed himself with his 9 mm pistol and slept in a chair in the front room that night. And when three people broke in about 3 a.m., Whitfield shot one of them, leaving the man dead on the kitchen floor."

This might be frontier justice, but it is not Ayn Rand's prescription for objective justice in a civilizated society. Maybe the police are ineffective. Maybe that comes from the Soviet Agriculture Model applied to protection services. Maybe. But opening up to pure free enterrpise including vigilantism and taking the law into your own hand would be - as Ayn Rand states in "The Nature of Government" - anarchy.

Ayn Rand specifically said that the govenrment has a monopoly on retaliatory force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks: "I was worried for my safety," Whitfield said. "I just figured if somebody breaks in, you have a right to defend yourself." This common sense rule predates any statutory scheme developed by any legislature. Adam

"William J. Whitfield came home early one January morning in 2010 to find his tiny brick bungalow just about emptied out by burglars."

He was not at home. He was not physically threatened. Generally (generally being what it is) burglars are largely non-confrontational.

"He knew they would be back. So, he called police to report the burglary, but he also armed himself with his 9 mm pistol and slept in a chair in the front room that night. And when three people broke in about 3 a.m., Whitfield shot one of them, leaving the man dead on the kitchen floor."

This might be frontier justice, but it is not Ayn Rand's prescription for objective justice in a civilizated society. Maybe the police are ineffective. Maybe that comes from the Soviet Agriculture Model applied to protection services. Maybe. But opening up to pure free enterrpise including vigilantism and taking the law into your own hand would be - as Ayn Rand states in "The Nature of Government" - anarchy.

Ayn Rand specifically said that the government[sic] has a monopoly on retaliatory force.

Michael:

She certainly did. In what context? In the context of a moral and ethical government which is restricted to three (3) functions.

When we get there, I will consider making the phone call to the effective local monopoly of physical force. Until that time, I, my friends and family will defend out lives and property with defensive force, lethal if necessary.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks: "I was worried for my safety," Whitfield said. "I just figured if somebody breaks in, you have a right to defend yourself." This common sense rule predates any statutory scheme developed by any legislature. Adam

"William J. Whitfield came home early one January morning in 2010 to find his tiny brick bungalow just about emptied out by burglars."

He was not at home. He was not physically threatened. Generally (generally being what it is) burglars are largely non-confrontational.

"He knew they would be back. So, he called police to report the burglary, but he also armed himself with his 9 mm pistol and slept in a chair in the front room that night. And when three people broke in about 3 a.m., Whitfield shot one of them, leaving the man dead on the kitchen floor."

This might be frontier justice, but it is not Ayn Rand's prescription for objective justice in a civilizated society. Maybe the police are ineffective. Maybe that comes from the Soviet Agriculture Model applied to protection services. Maybe. But opening up to pure free enterrpise including vigilantism and taking the law into your own hand would be - as Ayn Rand states in "The Nature of Government" - anarchy.

Ayn Rand specifically said that the govenrment has a monopoly on retaliatory force.

"The Nature of Government" in the VOS reprinted in CTUI supports your statement. A careful reading shows she tended too much to government here at the expense of individual rights. However, by her lights there would be no reason private use of retaliatory force could not be legally delegated to individuals under certain circumstances which is true of every state in this country. You have the right to self defense--to defend yourself, even to the point of defending someone else from initiators of physical force. As such you are an agent of the state. The basic principle is the amount of force isn't in excess of the necessary amount to stop an attack, but can be up to lethal, and cannot be used on someone retreating. Now, the libertarian impulse in me says someone breaks into my home I'm likely to kill him, especially if he has any type of weapon, and if he turns and runs with a gun I'll still kill him. A knife, I'll shoot him in the leg. More than one I'll empty my gun and reload.

Would shooting a gunman in the back be self defense? Yes. He can turn and shoot in a fraction of a second. I once had a slight acquaintance with a NYC police detective of some renown. This cop had some minor parts as _____________ in a movie or two, namely the __________________. In a Rockland county, NY pizza shop nearly 20 years ago, I asked him what was the single thing he did in police work he was most proud of. I'll tell you what, he said. Once I was serving a search warrant in an apartment's closet when suddenly this guy came by me with two guns held high in his hands. After he walked by me I killed him.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks: "I was worried for my safety," Whitfield said. "I just figured if somebody breaks in, you have a right to defend yourself." This common sense rule predates any statutory scheme developed by any legislature. Adam

"William J. Whitfield came home early one January morning in 2010 to find his tiny brick bungalow just about emptied out by burglars."

He was not at home. He was not physically threatened. Generally (generally being what it is) burglars are largely non-confrontational.

"He knew they would be back. So, he called police to report the burglary, but he also armed himself with his 9 mm pistol and slept in a chair in the front room that night. And when three people broke in about 3 a.m., Whitfield shot one of them, leaving the man dead on the kitchen floor."

This might be frontier justice, but it is not Ayn Rand's prescription for objective justice in a civilizated society. Maybe the police are ineffective. Maybe that comes from the Soviet Agriculture Model applied to protection services. Maybe. But opening up to pure free enterrpise including vigilantism and taking the law into your own hand would be - as Ayn Rand states in "The Nature of Government" - anarchy.

Ayn Rand specifically said that the govenrment has a monopoly on retaliatory force.

In his TED talk, The Myth of Violence, Steven Pinker addressess the problematic of 'preemptive violence':

From the transcript:

http://dotsub.com/vi...wTranscript/eng

[Steven Pinker]: More recently, Thomas Schelling gives the analogy of a homeowner who hears a rustling in the basement. Being a good American, he has a pistol in the nightstand, pulls out his gun, and walks down the stairs. And what does he see but a burglar with a gun in his hand. Now, each one of them is thinking, "I don't really want to kill that guy, but he's about to kill me. Maybe I had better shoot him, before he shoots me, especially since, even if he doesn't want to kill me, he's probably worrying right now that I might kill him before he kills me." And so on. Hunter-gatherer peoples explicitly go through this train of thought, and will often raid their neighbors out of fear of being raided first. Now, one way of dealing with this problem is by deterrence. You don't strike first, but you have a publicly announced policy that you will retaliate savagely if you are invaded. The only thing is that it's liable to having its bluff called, and therefore can only work if it's credible. To make it credible, you must avenge all insults and settle all scores, which leads to the cycles of bloody vendetta. Life becomes an episode of "The Sopranos."

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7421959887856210325

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now