Robert3750

Michael, I think the best known example about how you can’t control bomb making was the Oklahoma City bombing. No one thought of fertilizer as being bomb material. I saw that the 3-D printing of guns was addressed in a thread on here, highlighting just how absurd gun control is. The fact is that no one, not the State or anyone else, can know everyone’s intentions, and no one who cares about freedom would want it to. Sure it does. Of course, people don’t buy ready made bombs. There are no bomb shows. There's no National Bomb Association. People don’t keep a bomb on their nightstands to guard against break-ins. Women don’t carry bombs to defend against a would be rapist. People don’t hunt or target practice with bombs. In fact, I’d say that carrying a bomb is itself a threat of initiated violence. I wouldn’t, assuming I know what he’s up to. I don’t think that’s an issue of initiation of violence, but a safety issue. I mean, you could also ask “how would you like to get on a plane with obvious cracks in the wings and a drunk pilot?”, or “Would you rent an apartment next to the guy who doesn’t get his gas leak fixed?” These can be seen as violations of property rights. That’s fine, as long as they don’t endanger the life of others. As I would expect! I think that was the approach that guided Rand in the first place. I don’t think it makes sense to say “take the guns away from a police agency”, but rather “disallow improper use of their weapons”, of which Waco was an example. It seems to me that in a society that followed the NIOF principle, being armed to the teeth could easily be seen as a violation of the hotel’s property rights, and action could be taken on that basis. I also don’t think it makes sense to say “the government can restrict gun ownership because a few people could intend to initiate violence with them”.

What does the Israeli government's possession of nukes have to do with private ownership of them? Do you define private ownership as "ownership by an entity other than the U.S. government"?

How would a scenario of private ownership of nukes even arise? For what rational purpose? Sold to or built by whom, from components provided by whom and for what reason? It's reminiscent of Leonard Peikoff being asked what if someone privately, "legitimately" owned the entire earth? Why would the entire earth population turn it over to him?

Michael, The right to keep and bear arms is not only in the Constitution, but follows from Objectivist principles. Recall one of the most vehemently stated parts of Galt’s speech from AS: “Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate—do you hear me? no man may start—the use of physical force against others.” This principle applies whether it’s one man or a group of men, even a group calling themselves a government. Nowhere does the Galt statement say “well, initiation of force is ok to prevent initiation of force”. He says you cannot initiate physical force. Full stop. Period. Now let’s look at someone buying a weapon: Was force initiated in its manufacture? No. Was force initiated in its purchase? No. Does the mere fact of possessing it initiate force? No. So how can government initiate ANY force to disallow its possession? Answer: It can’t, if one accepts the initial premise. I couldn’t care less what Rand may have said about the issue. If she bought into the idea that government can restrict gun ownership, she violated her own vehemently stated principle. BTW, this issue is what soured me on listening to Yaron Brook. He was asked about gun control, and he started prattling on about the evils of guns (based on his experiences in the Israeli military), and how private ownership and use of them constituted a failure of government. It seemed to me that he had a view of government as being some sort of perfectly objective, perfectly capable, omnipresent protector that ideally should be the ONLY entity allowed to use force for ANY reason. I was shocked at how soft he was on the issue. But even he was forced to concede that an individual has the right to defend himself.

In terms of physics, energy is simply the ability to do work. Work is force acting through a distance. Power is energy per unit of time.

Sorry, I wanted to add text to my post. What the podcast is saying is that it's becoming clear that the three-letter agencies are quite willing to use their power to ensure that Democrats are perpetually the majority party, and that it does no good to say that Republicans can do the same, because the agencies aren't interested in helping them. We are seeing the agencies becoming instruments of political power rather than law enforcers. Law is breaking down.

This analysis from Ben Shapiro of a statement from left winger Sam Harris that it's ok to suppress information shows why people believe the Left stops at nothing to stop Trump:

YB WANTED the shitstorm we have now. He said voting for Biden was a must. He's lost all credibility with me.

Huh? Tchaikovsky died LONG before the Bolshevik revolution.

Thank you Michael. I like what you said about Objectivism being a starting point rather than an end point. I'm reminded of a well known book in libertarian circles titled It Usually Begins with Ayn Rand. After rereading PAR and seeing some Youtube videos of Barbara, I wish I had had a chance to meet her. Hers was not a perfect life, but neither is anyone else's. PAR helps me understand who Ayn Rand was better than any other book, and I'm grateful to her for that. BTW, I've never heard of VDare. Robert

I'm aware of ARI, and I've watched a number of Yaron Brook's lectures on Youtube. I think he does a fine job of explaining Rand's philosophy to people, although it does get repetitive hearing him use the same talking points in all his lectures. I've also listened to Peikoff's appearances at the Ford Forum. I liked his address concerning socialized medicine. However, I find Peikoff to be very unlikeable, and some of his statements along the lines of "if you don't agree with my conclusions about everything, you are objectively evil/irrational" etc. make him not worth listening to. I also think his treatment of the Brandens is inexcuseable and unforgiveable. ARI is not some oracle of flawless Objectivist wisdom, even though they sometimes act like they are. They tend to violate the idea that one should think for oneself.

Thanks Mark, but internecine conflict at ARI doesn't really interest me. I'm just happy knowing that there are people interested in Objectivism who don't swallow the idea that everything must revolve around what ARI thinks or says. I like the idea of treating ARI the way Howard Roark treated Ellsworth Toohey when Toohey demanded to know what Roark thought of him.

Sorry to post on a very old thread, but I only recently found this forum. I'm thinking of this statement from Jon Galt's speech in AS: Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate—do you hear me? no man may start—the use of physical force against others. It was always made clear by Rand and others that morality doesn't change due to numbers, ie if it's wrong for one man to rob another, then it's wrong for 10, 100, a million men to rob one man or group of men. Therefore, it's as wrong for government to initiate force as it is for one man to do so. With regard to gun registration, on what basis could the government compel it? Simply purchasing a gun does not initiate force. The purchase is a purely voluntary act involving no force or fraud. Therefore, the registration is not a retaliation against anything. It is, in fact, an initiation of force. Therefore, registration violates the principle of non-initiation stated by Galt (Rand).

Nice to feel welcome, Brant.