Posted: 5/10/2011 2:28:17 PM EDT
|
The Objectivist position on gun rights and gun control is a subject that is strangely quiet. Rand herself said virtually nothing on the issue. Very few of the prominent Objectivists that have followed her have ventured to add much either.
I find this to be a puzzling state of affairs. I personally know many Objectivists are gun owners, and think the issue is important. Indeed most people opposed to tyrannical governments, regardless of their philosophy, view gun ownership as an important right. The Objectivist position on gun control |
|
I dont really see a correlation between objectivism and the discussion of gun rights. One is a philosophy that explores the relationship between individuals and the things they produce....the other is discussion about the God given right to man to defend himself. I can see some cross-over topics that could include a discussion of both, but as isolated concepts, taken out of context, the two really have nothing to do with one another.
I dont really call myself an objectivist, although I will offer that I am a big Rand fan and I do fully subscribe to the idea that what I produce belongs to me.....wholly....and shouldnt be subject to taxes. Of course, the tax laws differ from my position, but such is life. I dont think one can take objectivists as a group and identify a common position regarding gun control. Some are probably in favor, others arent, and still others are entirely indifferent to the discussion. |
|
There is nothing in Objectivism that I can think of, that would provide a rational basis for gun control. Quite the contrary. It doesn't need to be addressed specifically, because the philosophy itself provides the means to work this (and other) questions out. That's the point of it, really. |
|
In her essay, The Nature of Government she says:
The use of physical force—even its retaliatory use—cannot be left at the discretion of individual citizens. Peaceful coexistence is impossible if a man has to live under the constant threat of force to be unleashed against him by any of his neighbors at any moment. Whether his neighbors’ intentions are good or bad, whether their judgment is rational or irrational, whether they are motivated by a sense of justice or by ignorance or by prejudice or by malice-the use of force against one man cannot be left to the arbitrary decision of another.
and There is only one basic principle to which an individual must consent if he wishes to live in a free, civilized society: the principle of renouncing the use of physical force and delegating to the government his right of physical self-defense, for the purpose of an orderly, objective, legally defined enforcement.
Whether she means voluntarily declining to defend self versus a gun ban is quite hazy. But seeing as elsewhere in the article she goes full Brady and says that private self-defense would "compel every citizen to go about armed, to turn his home into a fortress, to shoot any strangers approaching his door," or pretty much the typical 'blood in the streets' crap, it seems to me she isn't a fan of private gun ownership, to say the least. |
|
Quoted:
There is nothing in Objectivism that I can think of, that would provide a rational basis for gun control. Quite the contrary. It doesn't need to be addressed specifically, because the philosophy itself provides the means to work this (and other) questions out. That's the point of it, really. I agree with you, that there isn't anything inside the philosophy to support gun control. With that being said, many prominent Objectivists support some degree of gun control. In fact, a lot of them want tighter gun control than we have today. I've heard many Objectivists say machine guns should be flat out illegal. |
|
To expect a philosopher to talk at length about every issue possible seems impractical. The 2nd amendment and gun rights/gun control is "near and dear" to us but wasn't so much to Ayn Rand so she didn't expend much of her time thinking or writing about it.
I would expect that you could study and apply her philosophic approach and come to an understanding of the issue from an Objectivist position –– heck, you might even be able to define such a position with *enough* study/work. I'm not the *right* person to do such a thing because I have too much else on my plate, however, the kinds of things that would go into such an undertaking would be things like... A grasp and the ability to apply her thinking methodology (epistemology) to issues/problems/facts. A proper understanding of the principle of individual rights. By "proper" in this context, I mean a solid understanding of Ayn Rand's position on rights, without this the rest is hopeless. What facts of reality give rise to the need of self defense? What is it about the nature of humans makes this necessary? Are there objective limits on what armaments and how many an individual should be allowed to possess? What would be a litmus test you could apply to a particular weapon to figure out if it meets these limits or not? Why can't a reasonable individual count on the police force to handle his self defense needs? Are there any limits to whom is allowed to own armaments? How do you justify any particular restrictions? - CD PS: There are probably hundreds more items that should be on this list BUT the most important would be to really understand her epistemological approach and apply that to trying to understand these issues. I think that would get you the closest to what *might* have been her position if she had taken time to study and understand it herself. |