Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Republican

5 (6%)

Democrat

8 (9.5%)

Libertarian

11 (13.1%)

Undecided/Independent

38 (45.2%)

Other (Anarchist, Communist, Green, ect.)

22 (26.2%)

Total Members Voted: 84

[Pistolero]

Plus the stuff your grandfather earned, plus the gains it has made since his time through no effort or risk on your behalf. Yeah, I do disagree, but that's fine, I just want to get a better understanding of where modern objectivists stand on a few things, since traditional objectivism contradicts itself in its most basic premises. So I'm asking a few of the key questions that stand out as being extremely naive and slightly schizophrenic in Rands works to see if fifty plus years has advanced objectivism towards becoming an actual philosophy at all.

So the list now would be:
Do you agree with taxation?
Should the state provide legal services, police forces, and armed forces?
(Modified)Should the state force people to be truthful?
Should pornography be regulated?
Should employment standards be regulated?
Should the state protect the individuals freedom to spend their currency, goods, or services however they wish?
Should socioeconomic status be determined by talent and effort, or birth?

Are you religious?
If yes, should usury be legal?

Are you an objectivist?
If yes, do you acknowledge that forces other than physical compulsion exist?

And another new one: Do you acknowledge that there is a finite amount of wealth in circulation at any given moment in time (and a limit to how quickly new wealth can be created at that point)?

[mainiac]

The reason why DC has strict gun laws is because it's a poverty ridden hellhole with rampant crime.

Yeah, you notice how well they worked out before the Supreme Court said "that's not even remotely constitutional" (twice)? That's what the NRA is afraid of.

So what the NRA is afraid of is that an overwhelming majority of the citizens will exercise their right to peacefully elect representatives who will enact laws that they believe are in the public interest and in no way target or unfairly treat any minority.  In other words constitutional democracy is an extremist position.

[Zrk2]

Missed a question btw, should the government protect the individuals freedom to spend their currency, goods, or services however they wish (provided they do not impact on anothers freedom by doing so)?

Employment standards meaning minimum wage, anti truck system laws, health and safety regulations, etc btw. You say you acknowledge that forces other than physical compulsion exist, should the state also restrict an individuals ability to use those forces if they infringe on another citizens freedoms? I'm assuming here that as an objectivist you believe that the state should restrict people from taking things from each other by force of course, if that's not the case let me know.

Oh another new question: should socioeconomic status be determined by talent and effort, or birth?

Theoretically the state should not do that, but in order to attain a working system it's necessary. I support as close to a perfectly laissez-faire system as possible - and I'm tired so I don't want to write a paragraph about it.

Status should come from earning it, but if one chooses to endow one's kids in such a manner then that is one's choice.

'The upper class of a nation is its' past, the middle class its' future.' -Ayn Rand

The reason why DC has strict gun laws is because it's a poverty ridden hellhole with rampant crime.

Yeah, you notice how well they worked out before the Supreme Court said "that's not even remotely constitutional" (twice)? That's what the NRA is afraid of.

So what the NRA is afraid of is that an overwhelming majority of the citizens will exercise their right to peacefully elect representatives who will enact laws that they believe are in the public interest and in no way target or unfairly treat any minority.  In other words constitutional democracy is an extremist position.

What he means - I think - is that the government should not violate the right of the individual to bear arms, no matter how many people want it. Minority rights and all...

[Pistolero]

Theoretically the state should not do that, but in order to attain a working system it's necessary. I support as close to a perfectly laissez-faire system as possible - and I'm tired so I don't want to write a paragraph about it.

Status should come from earning it, but if one chooses to endow one's kids in such a manner then that is one's choice.

'The upper class of a nation is its' past, the middle class its' future.' -Ayn Rand

That quote from Rand handily demonstrates the kind of economic naivete I was talking about. Given a perfectly laissez-faire system, there is no middle class. The middle class formed through exactly the kind of employment standards laws we are talking about. With no restrictions on how the most powerful elements of society behave towards the less powerful, social mobility disappears. The reasons are both obvious and numerous, but in the interest of brevity I'll just point out that this is not a hypothesis, this was the state of human civilisation for ten thousand years.

Weakening a representative government simply weakens the people it represents. This is what gets me about libertarianism, we're not actually talking about a freer society for everyone here, we're talking about a plutarchy. That's fine, since so long as it's understood and not misrepresented, you can get down to whether it has value. Objectivism is another matter, it basically fails at every philosophical step, beginning by contradicting itself and ending much the same. Admittedly I haven't read any of the more modern objectivists, so I'm curious to see if anyone has been able to turn it into something worthwhile.

[Grek]

I am not a member of an organized political party; I am a Democrat.

[Strife26]

The reason why DC has strict gun laws is because it's a poverty ridden hellhole with rampant crime.

Yeah, you notice how well they worked out before the Supreme Court said "that's not even remotely constitutional" (twice)? That's what the NRA is afraid of.

So what the NRA is afraid of is that an overwhelming majority of the citizens will exercise their right to peacefully elect representatives who will enact laws that they believe are in the public interest and in no way target or unfairly treat any minority.  In other words constitutional democracy is an extremist position.

Yes.

American political culture is defined by being extremely individualistic, antagonistic, and rights-based. We're very fearful of government, especially when one of our rights gets touched in any way shape style or form. If you don't fear your constitutional democracy, then you're not thinking it through. Should you fear the federal government acting in a stupid manner and getting America in a needless war? Damn straight. Should you fear America not getting involved in a needed war that results in Americans getting killed down the line, damn straight. That's the bloody point of a representative system, because it's damn difficult for anyone to know what's best. The pro-gun control establishment firmly believes that gun ownership is an untouchable right.

Here's the thing, most statistics are going to point towards the majority of the American people being relatively gun friendly. By your reasoning, I can replace "anti-gun control lobbies" for your NRA in your quote and the meaning is just as valid.

[Aqizzar]

There is a wealth of accurate information that shows that gun ownership decreases crime.
There is a wealth of accurate information that shows that gun ownership increases crime.
There are several studies showing that most pro-gun studies are bullshit.
There is undeniable evidence that anti-gun lobbies astro-turf to an unreasonable extent.
It's certainly true that the NRA eats babies.
The Bradley campaign are a bunch of pinko-commies.
The 2nd Amendment is an individual right, just like the rights in the other first 10 amendments.
The NRA promotes lower back injures by wishing everyone carried a M2 HMG with them at all times.
There isn't a good chance that America will be invaded anytime soon, nor that an armed uprising of the people would be needed.
Your mom needs an armed uprising.

I just want to drop in and say that this post perfectly encapsulates how this issue rattles around in my head.  It shouldn't be overlooked, since once it makes sense, the rest of the argument does.

[Strife26]

I'm glad that you liked it Aqizzar. Seriously though, the M2 is *heavy;* between the weapon, the barrel, and a tripod, it weighs more than I do.

[mainiac]

Here's the thing, most statistics are going to point towards the majority of the American people being relatively gun friendly. By your reasoning, I can replace "anti-gun control lobbies" for your NRA in your quote and the meaning is just as valid.

The NRA has bloody done that.  I disagree with their stances most policy and find the legislation they have brought about to be repugnant.  But I don't go around calling it unfair or undemocratic.  That's democracy.  We don't always get our bloody ways.

[Strife26]

By that reasoning, any attempts to change precedent are undemocratic, and that clearly doesn't work.

[Fenrir]

Oh another new question: should socioeconomic status be determined by talent and effort, or birth?

This question is redundant. The talent one has and the effort one is willing to exert are determined by one’s DNA and one’s environment. The DNA one receives and the environment in which one finds oneself are invariably created by one’s birth. You are treating them like they are completely unrelated, but they are not.

[GlyphGryph]

The problem here is that anti-gun people are like most people around, say, spiders.

Spiders are not some inherently terrifying evil that gives you the heebie-jeebies. They are something that, to many people, is completely unfamiliar and alien and potentially dangerous. Those who are actually familiar with them, study them, work with them, know that simply isn't the case. They can be fascinating, versatile, and as long as one is careful they are really quite safe to have around.

Most of the anti-gun lobby comes across as incredibly illogical - they don't want guns, because guns creep them out (usually because they are unfamiliar with guns!). They've built up this conception in their mind about what a "gun" is, and refuse to be swayed. Now, the other side certainly does that as well, builds up a mythology around the weapons, but neither side is likely to be dealing with anything approaching a logical view of the situation. However, only one side wants to restrict the rights of the other, and only one side is awash in a completely irrational fear that they want to spread. Their arguments aren't even directed at the right things, most of the time. If they were just worried about, say, deaths and the like, they should be leading a campaign against private swimming pools, which are, statistically, a lot more lethal than a house full of guns. But they aren't part of a campaign against violent deaths, or murders, or anything that could be construed as logical. Every one of these people I've met in real life has had pretty much the same motivation - guns make them inherently uncomfortable. They don't like the idea. They want guns gone because the very idea of guns is unfamiliar and scary to them.

I am, quite simply, opposed to any governance based on irrational fear.

I ALSO believe that culture has value, and I can understand why groups like the NRA react the way they do. Guns are important to many groups of people culturally, guns are great fun, guns are collectors items, guns are hobbies, and guns are traditions. And when they see someone pushing to take those things away from them... well, their response seems a lot more rational. The groups who seek to legislate against it almost never take this into account. They just don't care.

(for a similar sample where I side with the lib'rls rather than the cons for the same exact reasons, see gay marriage. This is part of human nature, not restricted to either "side", as if the concept of "sides" were reasonable. It's found everywhere, and I will remain opposed to any policy based on it.)

Finally, it IS in the consitution, and that DOES mean something. We don't have a democracy, we have a constitutional republic, and that's because the masses(and/or politicians elected by the masses) love to be stubborn little dictators when they think they can get away telling other people what they can and cannot do, and the founders did not think that was alright. I agree with them. If you want to take rights like this away from people, you better get your shit together and do it right instead of trying to say it doesn't matter. If it didn't matter, well, you can amend the constitution and take it out.

[mainiac]

By that reasoning, any attempts to change precedent are undemocratic, and that clearly doesn't work.

Huh?

What he means - I think - is that the government should not violate the right of the individual to bear arms, no matter how many people want it. Minority rights and all...

See the problem here is that invoking minority rights is an attempt to end a debate with what should be the starting point.  Minorities have rights within reason.  But you can't invoke minority rights as a blanket excuse.  I can't go punch you and then say you can't infringe on my minority view that you should be punched.

If you are going to invoke minority rights, then you are calling things into the realm of Madisonian compromise.  That calls for people judging the needs of the few and many like a judge would, not in a winner take all contest.  But every time the gun lobby invokes minority rights they use it to accomplish winner take all objectives.  Why does our government need to use antiquated filing systems for parts of the BTF that would be much better be done by computers?  Who's minority rights does that protect?  Why do we need laws to protect the rights of gun ownership in public parks and bars?  Where's the minority right in that opposed to the plurality want?

If you invoke minority rights, you are asking for compromise.  There is no minority right to gun ownership.  There is only a minority right to responsible gun ownership.  If we let every felon and prison inmate go packing, we'd all be dead.  You need to ask where is the reasonable place to draw the line.  You can never, ever say minority rights and end the conversation.

[GlyphGryph]

I can't go punch you and then say you can't infringe on my minority view that you should be punched.

You could come up with some better analogies, really. After all, we're talking about a subject who's legality does not effect you at all. Even if the NRA gets everything they ever dreamed of, it would STILL be illegal to shoot you. Do you see? No one is arguing "people should be allowed to hold guns just because they are a minority." They are are arguing you shouldn't be allowed to take their right to do so away just because you are the majority.

Comparable examples would be gay marriage and abortion and drug legalization. Punching people in the face doesn't really qualify. We all agree laws exist for a reason, but many of us feel the reason needs to be a little bit better than "the majority of people agree that it is wrong".

But every time the gun lobby invokes minority rights they use it to accomplish winner take all objectives.

I don't even know what this means, gotta be honest.

Why do we need laws to protect the rights of gun ownership in public parks and bars? Where's the minority right in that opposed to the plurality want?

Because someone carrying something on them in a certain place doesn't effect you, at all, in the slightest.

Why does our government need to use antiquated filing systems for parts of the BTF that would be much better be done by computers?

That's just plain obstructionist, and I never really approved of that.

If we let every felon and prison inmate go packing, we'd all be dead.

Empty hyperbole.

So, here's my response: No, saying "minority rights" isn't enough. But neither is "but they don't need it so they shouldn't have it". And I've never even seen someone rely solely on minority rights for their pro-gun arguments, while I've seen plenty of people rely on the second to argue against them.

[mainiac]

Do you honestly not see how gun laws aren't a public safety issue?