Gun Control: the Objectivist Response

T

Tom Servo

Staff
Harry Binswanger, protegee of Ayn Rand, has a great article in Forbes in which he dismisses gun control on the grounds that it reverses the traditional equation upon which our legal system is based:

In particular, the government may not descend to the evil of preventive law. The government cannot treat men as guilty until they have proven themselves to be, for the moment, innocent. No law can require the individual to prove that he won’t violate another’s rights, in the absence of evidence that he is going to.
Click to expand...

The one right above others we have is the right to life, and the way to remove that right is by force. We have a right to defend against such force, and as such, we have a right to the tools used to that end.
 
Perfect. Ayn Rand is a must read for those who wish to see things clearly. And Objectivism is likely the most rational of philosophies.

Consider this:


"The smallest minority on earth is the individual.
Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities"



Willie


.
 
Preventive law was also tried in the late 20's and early 30's. It was known at the time as "Prohibition". It tried to "prevent" people from having access to alcohol because of what they "MIGHT" do under the influence of alcohol. It was a disaster and should be a lesson of history for other "preventive" laws or attempts by the government to pass more preventive laws. Not only do they not work, they are flat out wrong as they make our freedoms dependent upon what the government "worries" what the people might do if government doesn't ban certain products from general use by the people. That is NOT the sort of nation our founders envisioned.
 
^^^ Very True.

Kind of like our existing mary-jane laws and the bogus "war on drugs"? :rolleyes:

Seems like a good opportunity for another Ayn Rand quote:


There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers -- and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system.



Preventative Laws are about building power bases from which to govern. If we don't have enough criminals, we can make them with a law. With criminals comes the need to deal with them. From that paradigm, money flows... from one side to the other.

And further:

"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force."


To which the only defense is our excercise of our Second Amendment rights.


Rand also wrote:

Today, when a concerted effort is made to obliterate this point, it cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals -- that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government -- that it is not a charter _for_ government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection _against_ the government.


Which ideas ought to be obvious to us all.



Willie

.
 
Great Read. Shared on other websites.

This is an interesting perspective, but I think it will only really make sense to people who are well-versed in conservative thought. I've read most of Ayn Rand's works and they make sense to me. For people on the other side, she seems crazy.

I think the problem with Objectivism is that people don't understand that is rational thought applied to morality. People miss the point that It's a thought system regarding moral prerogatives and not necessary what would "work" best. At the same time I think people miss that a more "moral" society, without a collectivist mindset in the first place would "work" better anyway.

Interesting in any case.
 
I can understand why politicians might seem to embrace a collectivist mindset, as it puts them in positions of greater power. I don't understand a free people/society embracing the collectivist model as it puts them in a position of low or no power and in jeopardy of being subjugated. For one to accept that form of society, would seem to imply that one does not relish freedom, but rather relishes being "taken care of". This revolves directly around the right to keep and bear arms. Part of our modern day society seems willing and able to take on the responsibility for their own self defense. The other side of our society seems to be frightened of not only the responsibility, but the mere tools which allow one to take on the responsibility. I don't see how we reconcile those diametrically opposed ideologies. Thank God the founders put a very visible amendment in the Bill of Rights to remind "The People" that we have every right to accept the responsibility to defend ourselves as not only a collection of like minded people, but also as individual free men/women. The Bill of Rights is a limit on government powers, not on individual rights. The government should have no power to "infringe" upon our right to keep and bear arms to defend ourselves, our families, our communities, and our nation, whenever necessary. Not if, when, where, or how, the government gives us permission to do so. If we accept government control over our rights, we accept slavery and/or subjugation, rather than freedom/liberty.
 
I think one of the most fascinating things about Ayn Rand was her inability to conclusively state her position on Gun Control. While ardent followers and those who are inspired by her works (two camps I would separate to an extent) can rationally induce that gun control on almost any level is a form of state oppression twisted from the vanity of altruistic motives, she never came out and said it.

I feel that her heritage in Soviet Russia gave her a very unfortunate perception of the original select fire intermediate cartridge rifles that our nation is fighting over now. Double that with the fact that she believed the use of force for an altruistic purpose is the greatest evil manifesting in mankind. To most clearly illustrate this "force through altruism", she used the use of a gun as a very clean and unobjectionable metaphor.

Personally, I always thought of a pistol though, not a shotgun or rifle when I read her works. Not terribly relevant or meaningful, but a curious reflection.
 
I think one of the most fascinating things about Ayn Rand was her inability to conclusively state her position on Gun Control.


I'm not sure that I would agree with the proposition that she was unable: She more accurately simply didn't bother as it was not germane to her broader arguments. Although she used "guns" as a metaphor for force, she did not see life thru the 2nd Amendment prism as we do.

Lot's of overlap between those who study Objectivism and those who study 2nd Amendment issues, in any case. It's refreshing to find others of the same bent here.



Willie


.
 
Lot's of overlap between those who study Objectivism and those who study 2nd Amendment issues, in any case. It's refreshing to find others of the same bent here.
Click to expand...

The issue of rights, including those protected, not granted, by our Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights, is an issue which garners support from across the political spectrum, albeit at different levels of support. Thus, it should be, hopefully, difficult to ban a whole class of firearms (eg.; semiautomatics), given some recent court decisions, the advance of carry permit laws, and the recognition of the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right by the USSC in the Heller case. Dianne Feinstein will still try. What success she'll have seems to be in question. I hope I'm reading the political tea leaves correctly. The Newtown killings gave the anti gun rights folks some momentary opportunity to get vocal about banning "assault weapons". However, I still believe the majority of people in the US understand that an "assault weapons" ban would have had no effect on stopping such an incident. As a matter of fact, CT has an "assault weapons" ban in place and this event still took place. People understand that as they have time to reflect, absent the immediate horror of the event itself.
 
Tom Servo said:
Harry Binswanger, protegee of Ayn Rand, has a great article in Forbes in which he dismisses gun control...
Click to expand...

Allow me to state my agreement before engaging in dissent.

Binswanger's basic point, that a statistical analysis is not pertinent to an individual right, should be uncontroversial. We would reject on its face as ludicrous an argument that since a K98 or a mosin-nagant had in the past been used largely to perpetrate injustice, that these items should be banned. Yet, this is exactly the structure of the current argument so many of us oppose.

Let me also describe Rand's virtues before moving on to the vices in her ideas; understanding the author's history helps one understand what she describes well. She was a Russian Jew who saw a materially comfortable life her father built destroyed by mobs of the descendents freed by Alexander III. Accordingly, her literature aptly describes the danger of mobs who display poor analytical ability.

Unfortunately, she adopts the metaphysical substrata of the Marxist materialism and appeals to objectivity that destroyed her father's world. This is reflected in Binswanger's writing which is littered with the gratuitous use of the word "objectively". Remove that word from his piece and it loses none of its persuasive force. Indeed, Rand used the word as a talisman to sidestep the epistemological absurdity of her process.

The individualism of Rand is easily distinguishable from the view of individuals of the founding fathers and their view of rights arising from man's nature. Neither is the individualism of Rand reflective of the American sense of individualism as we expanded west; that American individualism featured a vibrant sense of voluntary association, what Rand's camp would call collectivism. Rand's individualism is very much that of a refugee from a mob. As appealing as that sense is in the current climate, it is ultimately corrosive of the social sense that translates individual rights into political force in our system.

I confess that my analysis of Rand is not widely shared in my part of the political spectrum, and that I know many sharp, intelligent, perspicacious people who are enthralled with Rand. However, I echo the caution of Whittaker Chambers who noted a fundamental defect in her philosophy as manifested in her literature.

My two cents, adjusted for inflation.
 
Last edited:
Well written and well considered save for this:


Neither is the individualism of Rand reflective of the American sense of individualism as we expanded west; that American individualism featured a vibrant sense of voluntary association, what Rand's camp would call collectivism.


Respectfully suggest a review of her hypothetical utopia, Galts Gulch, interestingly enough set in Colorado: Free and purely voluntary association, ethical conduct of mutually beneficial capitalistic business, and a strong pioneering spirit are the central themes.


Willie

.
 
I will take a look at that, though having suffered through Galt's unending speech I do consider myself to have already done considerable randian penance.
 
Last edited:
It could be worse: My significant other does not have English as her native language (she is Czech), so reads it slowly, but she has a sincere interest in philosophy. I bought her a CD of the audio book of Atlas Shrugged, and we listened to the speech in it's entirety... as read by the narrator.

Painful.....


Go back and study the written descriptions of Galts Gulch though. I believe you might rethink and fine-tune what you believe about her as a result.


Willie


.
 
I bought her a CD of the audio book of Atlas Shrugged, and we listened to the speech in it's entirety... as read by the narrator.
Click to expand...
And she's still talking to you? Wow! ;)

I've tried several times in life to trudge through her longer works. I can't do it.
 
Newman: -- and yet at the same time today we see an alarming rise in violent crimes in this country and more and more people applying for gun permits and wanting to protect themselves. Do you see this as a dangerous trend, number one; and number two, do you favor any form of gun control laws?

Rand: I have given it no thought at all and, off-hand, I would say, no, the government shouldn't control guns except in very marginal forms. I don't think it's very important because I don't think it is in physical terms that the decisions and the fate of this country will be determined. If this country falls apart altogether, if the government collapses bankrupt, your having a handgun in your pocket isn't going to save your life. What you would need is ideas and other people who share those ideas and fighting towards a proper civilized government, not handguns for personal protection.
Click to expand...

Sounds pretty explict to me.

http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/essays/guns.html

You have to remember that under her philisophy the people are not supposed to be allowed to use violence to obtain politcal ends. That is the exclusive domain of the government. A bit ironic in context.
 
I read every last miserable word of Fountainhead. I confess that I do not understand the enthusiasm many people have for her literature. Her characters are archly cartoonish and most of the dialogue is thinly veiled philosophical exposition.

As literature, I think it is amongst the worst I've read.
 
It could be worse: My significant other does not have English as her native language (she is Czech), so reads it slowly, but she has a sincere interest in philosophy. I bought her a CD of the audio book of Atlas Shrugged, and we listened to the speech in it's entirety... as read by the narrator.
Click to expand...
I know it's supposed to be good.
I know it's supposed to matter.

But...
Atlas Shrugged = nap time.

Too slow. Too boring. Too much wasted dialogue. It doesn't hold my interest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top