Ayn Rand on Gun Control

[Brant Gaede]

I believe Hamilton's great influence came during the Washington Administration.

It seems America's intellectual vitality was dissipated on the frontier and Britain's on its empire.

--Brant

[Dennis Hardin]

A reasonable case can be made against ownership of WMDs, such as nuclear weapons. After all, WMDs cannot be specifically targeted and used without killing many innocent people.

The problem is that the same argument can be made against the ownership of WMDs by governments. A government can no more use a WMD without killing large numbers of innocent people than an individual citizen can. So why is it okay for a government -- which, in the final analysis, is nothing more than an institution comprised of individuals -- to own WMDs?

Moreover, if -- as libertarians believe -- a government should have only those rights that have been delegated to it by citizens, and if no individual citizen can have the right to possess WMDs, then how can those citizens delegate a right to government (the right to possess WMDs) that they never had?

Ayn Rand insisted that all rights are ultimately the rights of individuals, that one does not gain special or new rights by being part of a collective. But it seems to me that some kind of collective right is involved in the claim that governments, but not individuals, may possess WMDs.

Ghs

Recall the definition of a right: A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. The specific right involved is the general principle of self-defense. It is the right of self-defense that the individual delegates to the government, not the right to use any specific weapon.

In addition--although I realize an anarchist does not accept government as legitimate--recall the definition of government: A government is an institution that holds the exclusive power to exercise the legitimate use of physical force in a given geographical area. The purpose of government is to insure that the use of physical force is kept under objective control—i.e., under the control of objective law.

The kind of weapon needed to defend an entire nation is obviously going to be a lot more powerful than what an individual needs to defend his life and property. But the right of self-defense is still the fundamental right being exercised.

It’s true that either a government or an individual (e.g., a rogue terrorist) could potentially kill large numbers of people with a WMD. But in the first case possessing such a weapon would be legitimate and the second it would not be. If an individual possessed such a weapon, the mere threat it represented would amount to a de facto use of force against his neighbors. Imagine the WMD owner rotating his M-16 rocket launcher from house to house according to who didn’t wave at him on a given day. Since it’s the government’s role to restrict the use of force, it can legitimately prohibit such weapons. On the other hand, if another world power like China has nuclear weapons, the only way we can possibly defend ourselves, as a nation, would be for us to have such a weapon. The context of the self-defense dictates the appropriateness of the weapon.

The issue of which arms a private individual could legitimately possess in a free society is very complex, but the above explanation more or less sketches in the extremes and why the issue is vitally important. The details just underscore the crucial importance of objective law.

[George H. Smith]

A reasonable case can be made against ownership of WMDs, such as nuclear weapons. After all, WMDs cannot be specifically targeted and used without killing many innocent people. The problem is that the same argument can be made against the ownership of WMDs by governments. A government can no more use a WMD without killing large numbers of innocent people than an individual citizen can. So why is it okay for a government -- which, in the final analysis, is nothing more than an institution comprised of individuals -- to own WMDs? Moreover, if -- as libertarians believe -- a government should have only those rights that have been delegated to it by citizens, and if no individual citizen can have the right to possess WMDs, then how can those citizens delegate a right to government (the right to possess WMDs) that they never had? Ayn Rand insisted that all rights are ultimately the rights of individuals, that one does not gain special or new rights by being part of a collective. But it seems to me that some kind of collective right is involved in the claim that governments, but not individuals, may possess WMDs. Ghs

Recall the definition of a right: A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. The specific right involved is the general principle of self-defense. It is the right of self-defense that the individual delegates to the government, not the right to use any specific weapon. In addition--although I realize an anarchist does not accept government as legitimate--recall the definition of government:"

This issue has nothing to do with government versus anarchism per se. I am quite willing to accept the legitimacy of a truly limited government, one based on the "consent of the governed" (an expression used by Rand), for the purpose of this discussion.

1) You say that the individual "delegates" to government "the right of self-defense." I have never delegated my right of self-defense to the U.S. government. I have never authorized the government to defend anything in my behalf, nor have I transferred such a right to the government, nor have I ever entrusted the government with the power to enforce my right of self-defense. In fact, I have never even been asked by the government if I wish to do any of these things. The government has merely usurped this right without consulting me or anyone else.

A proper government, according to Rand, functions as an agent its citizens. I cannot declare myself your agent, and thereby act in your behalf as your legal representative, without your consent. The only cases I know of where someone can legitimately do this without consent involve young children, mental defectives, etc. So unless I and other Americans are to be treated as children or mental defectives, the government needs to get our consent before it can legitimately claim to act in our behalf.

(2) But let's bypass this problem for now by appealing, say, to some vague and ill-defined notion of tacit consent. It is still incorrect to say that individuals delegate their right of self-defense to government -- at least if by "delegate" you mean "transfer" or "surrender." To say that individuals delegate their right of self-defense to government, strictly construed, would mean that I could not even defend myself with force against a vicious thug who attacks me on the street or in my home; rather, I would be required to call the police, or hope they show up; and while I was waiting I could only remain passive, allowing myself to be beaten and maybe killed without using force to defend myself.

Of course, I know this isn't what you meant to say, but the above problem is why precision is required when discussing this issue. What individuals delegate to government in Lockean social contract theory -- and Rand falls generally in this tradition -- is the right to punish criminals. Punishment differs from self-defense (though it might be viewed as a subcategory of self-defense, depending on one's approach.)

Unlike self-defense, punishment, which I use in a broad sense to include restitution, occurs after the initial assault is over, when the aggressor no longer poses an immediate threat to his victim. If someone robs me, I have the right to use force to defend myself during the robbery, but I do not have the right, after the robbery is over, to go to his home and recover my property by force. To effect restitution or some other punishment is the proper concern of government.

The same general reasoning applies to threats of violence (i.e., the initiation of force). If someone, in a fit of anger, threatens to kill me but takes no positive action against me, I may not, in the name of self-defense, use force against him -- either then or later. Rather, I must report my concern to the ideal limited government and let it handle the matter. (This involves what Locke called "restraint.")

In short, individuals do not delegate their right of self-defense to a proper government. Instead, they delegate to government the power to protect and enforce the individual right of self-defense, to the extent this is possible. When this is not possible, as in cases of assault or imminent threats, the individual fully retains his right of self-defense, just as he would in a society without government.

3) You say that the individual does not "delegate the right to use any specific weapon." This is true, but it does not address the key issue. If it is always illegitimate for individuals to possess WMDs, if no such right exists, then where did government get the right?

Suppose I defend the right of government to castrate or repeatedly rape terror suspects (who have not yet been tried, much less found guilty, of anything) in an effort to get information, but I deny that any individual can possibly possess this right. And suppose a critic asks how a government can acquire a right that no individual can possibly possess. Well, I reply by saying that we have delegated to government the right to use various methods of interrogation, but we have not delegated any specific method of interrogation. This doesn't deal with the problem, obviously. If justice always prohibits the individual from using this method, it must also prohibit governments from using it.

The only way out of this is to claim that a government acquires special rights that no individual could possibly have -- and that is a very slippery slide. Every O'ist and libertarian should avoid it at all costs, because it is the slide that ends in positive welfare rights and a host of other statist measures.

I will take up your other points later.

Ghs

[Robert Campbell]

Dennis, historically, the considerations are always in the direction opposite to the one you assume now. In other words, it is not that the Supreme Court recently decided that the Second Amendment is (or is not) incorporated to the states, but, rather, that this is the last of the rights not so decided. Always before, the assumption was that the federal Bill of Rights limited the federal government, while the state governments enjoyed other (more; different) powers.

Michael,

What if the Supreme Court hadn't gutted and filleted the 14th Amendment, back in 1873?

Would it have subsequently felt a need to replace a few "privileges or immunities" via "incorporation"?

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

On this latter issue at least, I'm glad the Jeffersonians lost the debate, whatever its constitutionality may be. I never shared Jefferson's faith that the "people," as represented by Congress (especially the House), will usually do the right thing.

George,

No kidding.

Had Thomas Jefferson been able to witness what some later Congresses were capable of, he might have revised his thinking on the matter.

Robert Campbell

[syrakusos]

The Supreme Court has been highly politicized since John Marshall became Chief Justice in 1801. Marshall functioned as a Federalist shill and greatly expanded the powers of the Supreme Court beyond anything authorized by the Constitution. The Jeffersonians disliked the Supreme Court and hated Marshall -- for good reason.

Ghs

George, I used to feel the same way. Then I read Federalist #78.

Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power. It is urged that the authority which can declare the acts of another void, must necessarily be superior to the one whose acts may be declared void. As this doctrine is of great importance in all the American constitutions, a brief discussion of the ground on which it rests cannot be unacceptable.

There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.

THOMAS, Library of Congress, Federalist #78 here

But Judicial Review was also touched on in 44 by Madison, 16 by Hamilton, and 81 by Hamilton. Moreover, during the debates Mason, Gerry, Morris and others hashed out this and related topics involving the powers of the judiciary. (The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates, Ralph Ketchum, editor, (Signet 2003).) In short, it seems that they assumed that the Supreme Court (indeed all courts) would have the power to declare a law unconstitutional.

What if the Supreme Court hadn't gutted and filleted the 14th Amendment, back in 1873?

Would it have subsequently felt a need to replace a few "privileges or immunities" via "incorporation"?

Robert Campbell

Robert, I don't know... Too many ifs for me and I know nothing about the case(s) you are referring to.

[Dennis Hardin]

George,

Thanks for your response. I regret that I simply don't have the time for a detailed analysis of all your points. Due to the limits of time, I have to choose between giving a brief (and admittedly incomplete) reply or giving no reply at all. So this will have to do for now.

Many of your points go back to the anarchist vs. minarchist debates--i.e., if each and every individual does not agree to delegate his right of self-defense, is government legitimate? I simply can't rehash those arguments here, beyond asking the question: can civilization exist if we fail to bring the use of force under objective control? I say it cannot. In the real world in which we live, limited government--with all its imperfections--is the only viable option if we want to live in a free society.

In short, individuals do not delegate their right of self-defense to a proper government. Instead, they delegate to government the power to protect and enforce the individual right of self-defense, to the extent this is possible. When this is not possible, as in cases of assault or imminent threats, the individual fully retains his right of self-defense, just as he would in a society without government.

I grant you that this is a more precise phrasing of what it means to "delegate the right of self-defense to government."

3) You say that the individual does not "delegate the right to use any specific weapon." This is true, but it does not address the key issue. If it is always illegitimate for individuals to possess WMDs, if no such right exists, then where did government get the right?

Suppose I defend the right of government to castrate or repeatedly rape terror suspects (who have not yet been tried, much less found guilty, of anything) in an effort to get information, but I deny that any individual can possibly possess this right. And suppose a critic asks how a government can acquire a right that no individual can possibly possess. Well, I reply by saying that we have delegated to government the right to use various methods of interrogation, but we have not delegated any specific method of interrogation. This doesn't deal with the problem, obviously. If justice always prohibits the individual from using this method, it must also prohibit governments from using it.

The only way out of this is to claim that a government acquires special rights that no individual could possibly have -- and that is a very slippery slide. Every O'ist and libertarian should avoid it at all costs, because it is the slide that ends in positive welfare rights and a host of other statist measures.

I will take up your other points later.

Ghs

Once again, this goes back to the question: What is a right? A "right" refers to a general principle, not a concrete means of implementing that right. A government does not acquire any special rights that individuals do not have. The "right" is the principle of self-defense, but the concrete means of implementing that principle depend on the context. Because the government is acting on behalf of thousands of citizens, the concrete means of enforcement are totally different. Weapons of mass destruction can only be defended by weapons of mass destruction.

I would extend that principle to contexts where torture may be unavoidable. If a terrorist has knowledge that would enable the government to protect the lives of its citizens, it has the right (in the name of the principle of self-defense) to do whatever is necessary to obtain that knowledge from the terrorist, which would include specific means of interrogation that no individual would ever likely need to use for his own private defense. By delegating the right of self-defense, we have delegated the right to use whatever means are neccessary for our protection.

If the government had good reason to believe that the city of Bloomington, Illinois was about to be reduced to rubble by a nuclear weapon, and the only way to prevent this was to obtain knowledge of the whereabouts of the nuclear weapon by torturing a terrorist, would you want the government to refrain from using torture to protect your life? It has the right to do so in accordance with its authority to act on behalf of the citizens' right of self-defense. If the government does not do so, and thousands of people die, it failed to fulfill its moral obligation to the citizens it is supposed to be protecting.

[George H. Smith]

George,

Thanks for your response. I regret that I simply don't have the time for a detailed analysis of all your points. Due to the limits of time, I have to choose between giving a brief (and admittedly incomplete) reply or giving no reply at all. So this will have to do for now.

Many of your points go back to the anarchist vs. minarchist debates--i.e., if each and every individual does not agree to delegate his right of self-defense, is government legitimate? I simply can't rehash those arguments here, beyond asking the question: can civilization exist if we fail to bring the use of force under objective control? I say it cannot. In the real world in which we live, limited government--with all its imperfections--is the only viable option if we want to live in a free society.

The problem of consent has been discussed for centuries. The individualists (such as Locke and Jefferson), who insisted that no government can be legitimate without the consent of the governed, locked horns with absolutists (such as Filmer and Hobbes) and other foes of consent theory (such as David Hume), who responded that no government ever has been or ever can be based on consent, so governments as we find them, no matter how imperfect, are our only viable option short of anarchy.

This was not, and need not be, a controversy over the theoretical legitimacy of government itself. Rather, the debate over consent focused primarily on the problem of allegiance to particular governments. This was the point of the American War for Independence, for example. That war, which was predicated on the illegitimacy of the British government, was not fought to establish anarchy but to establish a government (or governments) based on the consent of the governed. Thus to deny that a particular government is not based on the consent of the governed, which was the charge leveled by Americans against the British government, is not necessarily an anarchist argument.

Individualist critics of the the American Revolution, such as Josiah Tucker, alleged that the American were fair-weather Lockeans, in effect. That is to say, they had appealed to the doctrine of consent in order to overthrow the British government, but they ignored the selfsame doctrine when establishing their own governments. The Americans disagreed, and they had some grounds for doing so, because they actually had a theory of consent, one that was largely based on Locke.

Our problem is that the Lockean theory of consent is not compatible with Ayn Rand's ideas about proper government. Consider Thomas Paine's remarks (in Rights of Man) that a law which can be repealed via voting, but is not repealed, can be said to enjoy the sanction of the consent of the governed, and is therefore legitimate. By Paine's standard, if a measure like Obama Care can be repealed in modern democratic America, but is not repealed, then it is legitimate, even if we happen to disagree with it personally.

Paine's view of the legitimization of laws through a democratic process was widely shared by his republican contemporaries such as Jefferson, but this approach is not one shared by O'ists. And this is where we encounter a major problem: Although Ayn Rand endorsed the principle of consent and embraced the agency theory of government that results from it, she never specified the process of consent by which individuals (Americans, in our case) have supposedly delegated certain rights (or the power to enforce certain rights) to their government. Nor has this been done by any O'ist philosopher that I know of. Hence we are not rehashing anything here.

What O'ist philosophers typically do is this: They decide which rights must be delegated to a government for the purpose of establishing a free society, and then they declare that such rights have been delegated. This is the same approach that Kant took in his a priori version of social contract theory. Whether individuals had in fact delegated any rights was irrelevant to Kant, as it is irrelevant to many O'ist political philosophers.

This simply won't do, at least for philosophers who uphold a consent theory of government. It won't do for an O'ist to decide which rights (or the power to enforce them) should be delegated to government, and then declare that such rights have been delegated to government, and then christen this slipshod reasoning as government by consent. So unless an O'ist can come up with a plausible theory of consent, he should give up the ghost of consent altogether and frankly admit that "government by consent" plays no significant role in his approach.

Note what I am not saying here. I am not excluding the possibility that the O'ist might able to justify the legitimacy of government in theory and our allegiance to a specific government. All I am saying is that he should either give us the specifics of his theory of consent or drop the charade of consent altogether.

Again, there is no rehashing involved here, because O'ists have never hashed this problem to begin with.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Consent: This seems to have a tie in with British taxing legislation when no American colonies were represented in Parliament.

My take on the issue of consent is that it is a moral argument for anarchy and minarchists like myself merely focus on making the government as non-rights' violating as possible. We aren't concerned with consent except to argue against anarchy as impractical against the reality of statist government which seems to arise spontaneously much as language flows out of a mind and body made up for it. The legitimacy of government has to do, for me, with how much government is focused on more freedom, not less--that is if the government we have respects rights enough to vet laws, regulations and what have you with reference to rights, that would be a positive measure of its legitimacy. But, no matter how legitimate, there will always be some rights' violations going on, both by government and individual citizens.

--Brant

dealing with it

[George H. Smith]

I want to clariify the Lockean theory of government by consent, since it had an enormous influence on 18th century American thought. Here is a brief summary:

1) Individuals join with others and agree to form a civil society, which is necessary in order to remedy various "inconveniences" in a state of nature. Chief among these inconveniences is the lack of an impartial arbiter to resolve disputes. This stage requires the consent of each individual. If someone refuses to join this civil society, he may do so, but he places himself outside of its protection.

2) Having formed a civil society, and knowing that unanimity will not be possible in the vast majority of its collective decisions, each member thereby agrees to abide by majority rule in matters pertaining to the common good. This agreement constitutes the "social contract," properly speaking.

3) The members of civil society, acting upon the principle of majority rule, decide upon the form of government they want, e.g., a constitutional monarchy, a republic, etc. (For reasons I won't explain here Locke ruled out absolute monarchy as a legitimate option. His argument would clearly rule out other types of absolute governments as well, such as absolute democracies.)

4) Having decided upon a form of government, the majority then delegates certain rights or the power to enforce certain rights (Locke is not always clear on this distinction) to an agent or agents, and this establishes a government. The relationship between an incorporated civil society (acting on the principle of majority rule) and a government is that of a principal and his agent. Hence the agent can retain his authority only so long as he exercises only those powers that have been delegated to him.

This second stage is the political or governmental contract, as some historians have called it, not the social contract per se. This contract establishes a trust.

5) Although the social contract is an agreement among equals, the political contract is not. A government is a hired-hand, in effect, who has been assigned specific duties. Should a government fail to discharge these duties, or should it exercise powers beyond its delegated powers, it may be replaced or overthrown by members of society.

6) Locke evaded the problems in consent theory by appealing to a theory of tacit consent. His approach was convoluted, but it amounted to a "Love it or leave it" argument. Locke did not accept the argument of many of his predecessors -- e.g., Richard Hooker, whom Locke quotes in the Second Treatise -- that the present generation can be bound by the agreements of earlier generations, so the fact that our ancestors may have consented to a government has no bearing on our allegiance to that government. Rather, Locke argued that each person, when he reaches the age of reason, may decide for himself whether or not to remain in his country of origin. If he chooses not to stay, he may emigrate elsewhere; but if he chooses to remain, he therey tacitly consents to obey the laws of his country. Moroever, if an English subject visits another country, he tacitly agrees to abide by the laws of that country, so long as he is there.

7) Thus did Locke, through a theory of tacit consent, turn a theory with radical potential into a fairly conservative approach in practice. To apply his reasoning to contemporary America: If Obama Care was passed by constitutionally legitimate means -- an issue to be decided, in the final analysis, by the Supreme Court -- then it is ultimately based on the consent of the governed and is therefore proper , so long as people can vote in some fashion to repeal it, e.g., by electing a different administration. If you don't like Obama Care, and if you cannot persuade the majority to your point of view, then that is your tough luck. Leave the United States and go elsewhere, if you find it that intolerable.

Is this the approach that O'ists would take? I hope not.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

"Tacit consent"--how does that jibe with Jefferson's "blood of tyrants" quote or the American Revolution? Don't fight--leave?

--Brant

Locke's half loaf?

[George H. Smith]

"Tacit consent"--how does that jibe with Jefferson's "blood of tyrants" quote or the American Revolution? Don't fight--leave? --Brant Locke's half loaf?

You hit the nail on the head. Americans rejected the theory of tacit consent when opposing British policies but later invoked it when forming their own governments. No one pointed out the problem here more clearly than the English liberal Josiah Tucker,

Writing in 1781, shortly after the American victory at Yorktown, Tucker (in his Treatise on Civil Government) said that the Americans had used the revolutionary features of the Lockean system to justify the War for Independence. But after succeeding in this endeavor, Americans faced an even more difficult challenge. The Americans had to do what the British could not do: they had to build a government based on the "visionary Schemes of universal freedom, and Liberty of Choice."

This was an impossible task, according to Tucker: "the Lockian System is an universal Demolisher of all Civil Governments, but not the Builder of any." (459) American leaders were mere hypocrites. According to Lockean theory, after the British were overthrown, the Americans had the right to live in a state of nature without any government at all. But they were denied this choice; "therefore, the only Point which they had to determine...was, Who should govern, Americans or Englishmen." (445) Moreover, neither American state governments nor the Continental Congress could pass the consent test:

Was any one of these Civil Governments at first formed, or is it now administered, and conducted according to the Lockian Plan? And did, or doth any of their Congresses, general or provincial, admit of that fundamental Maxim of Mr. Locke, that every Man has an unalienable Right to obey no other Laws, but those of his own making? No; no; ‑‑ so far from it, that there are dreadful Fines and Confiscations, Imprisonments, and even Death made use of, as the only effectual Means for obtaining that Unanimity of Sentiment so much boasted of by these new‑fangled Republicans, and so little practiced." (461)

In 1790, after the new federal government had been established with Washington as president, James Madison considered the problem of how allegiance could be demanded from Americans who had not consented to the new government. In his letter to Jefferson (4 Feb. 1790), Madison wrote (my italics):

I can find no relief from such embarrassments but in the received doctrine that a tacit assent may be given to established Governments and laws, and that this assent is to be inferred from the omission of an express revocation. It seems more practicable to remedy by well-constituted Governments the pesitlent operation of this doctrine [of consent] in the unlimited sense in which it is at present received [i.e., by many Americans], than it is to find a remedy for the evils necessarily springing from an unlimited admission of the contrary doctrine [i.e., that legitimate governments do not require consent].

"Is it not doubtful," Madison continued, "whether it be possible to exclude wholly the idea of an implied or tacit assent, without subverting the very foundation of civil society?" In other words, if you are going to be a hard-ass about consent theory, if you insist that people really do need to consent to their government, then you will become an anarchist -- so let's just go with the fiction of tacit consent instead. So long as the majority of people don't revoke their government or its laws, we can assume that everyone has consented to that government and its laws.

A nifty argument, this.

Ghs

[dennislmay]

Discussions of Rand and Gun Control always remind me about Peikoff and his

views as expressed on his radio show - a luddite view restricting private ownership

to technology prior to 1883.

His "objectively" determined restrictions upon individuals might also extend to

this 1855 design since with minor changes it could be a repeating high capacity

assault rifle.

Treeby Chain Rifle

http://www3.hants.gov.uk/firearms-collection/treeby-chain-rifle.htm

It reminds me about how central planners are often decades or longer behind in thinking

on most any subject.

Dennis

[Brant Gaede]

Tacit consent: I did but now I don't but from whence comes my right to do more than leave--to wage war? Rand said, the abrogation of free speech.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Discussions of Rand and Gun Control always remind me about Peikoff and his

views as expressed on his radio show - a luddite view restricting private ownership

to technology prior to 1883.

His "objectively" determined restrictions upon individuals might also extend to

this 1855 design since with minor changes it could be a repeating high capacity

assault rifle.

Treeby Chain Rifle

http://www3.hants.go...chain-rifle.htm

It reminds me about how central planners are often decades or longer behind in thinking

on most any subject.

Dennis

Ha, it's the basic design principles of the modern machine gun.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

Tacit consent: I did but now I don't but from whence comes my right to do more than leave--to wage war? Rand said, the abrogation of free speech. --Brant

Rand's criterion of free speech was pretty much arbitrary. 18th century Americans had a great deal of free speech, but they waged war against Britain anyway. Indeed, we find a great deal of violent and incendiary rhetoric in many of the pre-1776 pamphlets -- the kind of rhetoric that would bring a modern American writer under close scrutiny by the government.

Or go back to the 17th century and consider the writings of John Locke and Algernon Sidney -- two favorites of Jefferson and other Americans. Both defended the right of violent revolution, and both went so far as to defend the doctrine known as tyrannicde, when this is necessary. All this may sound quaint to modern readers, but consider the same argument in its modern context. To write similar books today would involve discussing the right of Americans to assassinate a president who has egregiously and repeatedly violated his constitutional limits, if no other remedy was available.

How many writers, including libertarian writers, would be willing to discuss this possibility today? I'm not even comfortable discussing the prospect online, even on a theoretical level, for fear that I might receive an unwanted knock at my door by men in SWAT outfits. Yet 17th century defenders of tyrannicide were even more radical than this, for they were referring not only to governments that most people considered legitimate at the time but also, in many cases, to monarchs who supposedly ruled by divine decree.

Pardon me for reposting this video, but, in case you missed it, I discuss the issues we are considering here in some detail:

Ghs

[Dennis Hardin]

The issue of "consent of the governed" was hashed and rehashed here, as recently as January, 2012. (I didn't look any further than that.)

It's true that Rand "never specified the process of consent by which individuals (Americans, in our case) have supposedly delegated certain rights (or the power to enforce certain rights) to their government." It may also be true to say that this has "never been done by any O'ist philosopher[Ghs]."

I suspect that's because it is fairly obvious that there is no way that any government would ever have the full consent of all the citizens in a given geographical area. It's equally clear that defenders of anarchy would not accept anything less than that. So it's a lost cause. The role of being a philosophical Don Quixote has never appealed to me.

We all recognize that the real world is going to fall significantly short of the ideal here. That happens sometimes. The difference is that minarchists remain focused on reality, and anarchists remain focused on their ideal.

In an ideal world, we should be able to design planes that never fall from the sky. But no matter how much effort we invest in the design and maintenance of airplanes, a few of them still fall from the sky. Conscientious police officers should be so well-trained that they never shoot innocent people. But innocent people still get shot by conscientious policemen. Conscientious doctors should never prescribe medications that kill their patients. But the patients of the most conscientious doctors still die from the side effects of medications. Vaccines shoud never cause the diseases they are designed to prevent. But patients still get sick from the most arduously researched vaccines. Children who grow up in wonderfully rational and healthy homes should never turn out to be irresponsible derelicts. But adults from the very best homes often turn out to be miserable human beings.

Reality, alas, often fails to conform to our best made plans and intentions and theories, no matter how hard we work to eliminate certain problems. Our task as human beings remains that of recognizing the facts of reality and dealing with them the best way that we can.

We would like to insist that reality conform to our most carefully orchestrated theories, but we cannot wipe out those cases when it doesn't. It never works to worship our theories while we wipe out reality. When we do, as Branden used to say in his lectures, reality simply wipes out the wiper.

[Selene]

A former Marine whose arrest at the Empire State Building on a gun-possession charge last September prompted outrage among supporters of gun rights pleaded guilty on Tuesday to a misdemeanor weapons-possession charge.

The agreement allowed the former Marine, Ryan Jerome, a jeweler from Indiana, to avoid a possible prison sentence of three and a half years. He agreed to serve 10 days of community service near his home and to pay a $1,000 fine.

Mr. Jerome, who was arrested on a felony charge after trying to check his pistol with security guards, had resisted for months the offer he eventually accepted in a standoff with the office of the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr.

http://www.nytimes.c...ge.html?_r=1

[dennislmay]

A former Marine whose arrest at the Empire State Building on a gun-possession charge last September prompted outrage among supporters of gun rights pleaded guilty on Tuesday to a misdemeanor weapons-possession charge. The agreement allowed the former Marine, Ryan Jerome, a jeweler from Indiana, to avoid a possible prison sentence of three and a half years. He agreed to serve 10 days of community service near his home and to pay a $1,000 fine. Mr. Jerome, who was arrested on a felony charge after trying to check his pistol with security guards, had resisted for months the offer he eventually accepted in a standoff with the office of the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr. http://www.nytimes.c...ge.html?_r=1

A good reason to avoid primitive 3rd world states within US borders.

Dennis

[Selene]

THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT put some noses out of joint when it ruled unanimously this month that the University of Colorado's campus gun ban violated a 2003 state law that entitles residents with permits to carry concealed weapons.

Now there is a great side by side, direct comparison with almost all of the variables being the same which destroys the argument of less guns = less crime:

While the University of Colorado spent much of the past decade resisting the state's concealed-carry law[

meaning less guns present

], Colorado State University complied with it[

meaning more guns present

]. If the gun controllers are right, Colorado State should have seen a surge in crime, while its gun-banning sister institution should have been an Eden of security and lawfulness. That's not what happened. As Clayton E. Cramer and David Burnett write in

a new monograph for the Cato Institute

, "crime at the University of Colorado has risen 35 percent since 2004, while crime at Colorado State University has dropped 60 percent in the same time frame."

Well now, that is Colorado, the progressive fascist will say and those people, well you know, they are civilized, what about, well you know, in the jungles of Washington D.C., where, well, you know how "THOSE PEOPLE" are!"

Something similar happened after the US Supreme Court's 2008 Heller decision striking down the longstanding gun ban in Washington, DC. The city's mayor

predicted in dismay

that "more handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence," yet

crime in the nation's capital plunged.

Murder nose-dived

to its lowest rate in half a century

, falling from 186 in 2008 to 144 in 2009 to 132 in 2010 to 108 in 2011 -- a far greater decline,

as economist John Lott points out

, than in the rest of the country, or in cities of comparable size.

Now,

To be sure, correlation doesn't prove causation. But the experience of Colorado and DC should come as no surprise. There is by now so much evidence that higher rates of gun ownership lead to lower rates of crime that it isn't hard to fathom why

fewer and fewer Americans want to ban handguns.

According to Gallup, just 26 percent of the public now thinks the private possession of handguns should be illegal -- down from 60 percent half a century ago. Roughly 1 of every 4 Americans reports keeping a gun to

protect themselves or their homes

. Having a gun makes many people -- for good reason -- feel safer.

Finishing this argument, we all can recognize that:

Of course, most defensive gun uses never make the news at all. As Cramer and Burnett observe, "Man Scares Away Burglar, No Shots Fired," is not a very compelling headline.

But with or without headlines, millions of Americans grasp instinctively that guns make us safer. For when honest citizens carry weapons, criminals are less likely to attack -- and those who do are more likely to fail.

http://townhall.com/columnists/jeffjacoby/2012/03/21/a_safer_society_with_guns/page/full/

Adam

[Dglgmut]

What's the use in trying to devise a system that will protect people's rights without their involvement? The government shouldn't be expected to protect people's rights on its own, that's like expecting an umbrella to keep people dry without them having to hold it up... although they do have those hats. But seriously, the government can't be expected to keep itself in check.

When someone tries to sneak on a streetcar through the back doors and is spotted by the driver, the driver will announce that he won't continue his route until the person who hasn't paid gets off the streetcar. Anyone on the streetcar that's running late has the most incentive to compel the person to get off. Usually yelling at them works right away.

People who contribute the most value to society should have the most say as far as how society conducts itself. The Strike was a similar concept, except the demands should have been specifically to the people rather than the government. The guy driving the streetcar knows the people who sneak on without paying are not going to leave of their own volition, they need to be threatened.

When dealing with reality, the main challenge is prioritizing. It's accepting the fact that you can't have everything you want, and therefor, you must choose one or the other. A system that forces people to make choices as to the role of government, and to either get involved or to stay out of the way might be a good idea.

[Brant Gaede]

What's the use in trying to devise a system that will protect people's rights without their involvement? The government shouldn't be expected to protect people's rights on its own, that's like expecting an umbrella to keep people dry without them having to hold it up... although they do have those hats. But seriously, the government can't be expected to keep itself in check.

When someone tries to sneak on a streetcar through the back doors and is spotted by the driver, the driver will announce that he won't continue his route until the person who hasn't paid gets off the streetcar. Anyone on the streetcar that's running late has the most incentive to compel the person to get off. Usually yelling at them works right away.

People who contribute the most value to society should have the most say as far as how society conducts itself. The Strike was a similar concept, except the demands should have been specifically to the people rather than the government. The guy driving the streetcar knows the people who sneak on without paying are not going to leave of their own volition, they need to be threatened.

When dealing with reality, the main challenge is prioritizing. It's accepting the fact that you can't have everything you want, and therefor, you must choose one or the other. A system that forces people to make choices as to the role of government, and to either get involved or to stay out of the way might be a good idea.

You are the "people" so you are involved--no?

"A system that forces people" to do what you are complaining they already do?

--Brant

[Dglgmut]

One day I hope to have a lot of value to offer people, but I don't yet. If I did, I would force people to choose between what value I have to offer them, and what I hate in the world. The more reasonable my demands relative the value I have to offer, the more likely I will get what I want.

Now, if everyone did that, hell if we wouldn't see people finding a way to cooperate without someone getting screwed over all the time.

[Brant Gaede]

One day I hope to have a lot of value to offer people, but I don't yet. If I did, I would force people to choose between what value I have to offer them, and what I hate in the world. The more reasonable my demands relative the value I have to offer, the more likely I will get what I want.

Now, if everyone did that, hell if we wouldn't see people finding a way to cooperate without someone getting screwed over all the time.

There is no reason from the point of a gun.

--Brant

[Backlighting]

Here in Vegas there is the "open carry" law. One can carry a loaded handgun on one's person so long as it is visible. Additionally, one can have a loaded handgun, visible or not, within his vehicle. It just can't be concealed on his person.

Getting a concealed handgun permit requires one to attend a firearms safety class (8 hrs.) and "qualify" with the weapon.

More info at:

http://www.shouselaw.com/nevada/concealed-weapon.html