The Distraction of Gun Control
Many people, including Objectivists, are confused over the issue of gun control and how to resolve it. As many writers have noted neither Ayn Rand nor her pupils have developed detailed philosophical, political and legal positions on the matter, but this doesn’t mean it’s a “hole” in Objectivism.
Before I begin I should note that I do not speak for Ms. Rand or Objectivism and any errors, factual or logical, are entirely mea culpa.
In The United States, and indeed throughout most of the Western world, we do not allow children to sign contracts. In fact there are many things we don’t allow children to do: smoke, drink, engage in sexual activity, buy or own weapons, drive automobiles and the list continues. The reason we deny these things to children is because of the special metaphysical nature of children. They are human, but they are not adults. While it is certain that different children develop their cognitive and conceptual abilities at different rates we limit certain activities across the board to certain ages in an attempt to be certain of their ability to understand those activities they wish to participate in as adults; meaning as fully conceptual human beings.
As with children, so to with guns.
The metaphysical nature of the weapon is of importance in determining the particular view in which the philosophy of law should hold it. Without this context, no rational decision is possible in regard to weapons.
In my view Ms. Rand had several important things to say on this particular. In an interview with Raymond Newman, Ms. Rand answered the question on the issue of gun control thusly:
“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.” (emphasis added)
Also, in “What is Capitalism?” Ayn Rand had this to say:
“The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man's rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man's right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control" (emphasis added)
Furthermore, in Letters of Ayn Rand, in a letter to a Mr. Flynn: "A man has a constitutional right to bear arms.”
Many advocates for gun rights argue the position that all weapons, even nuclear weapons, should be available to be owned by individuals so long as they do not violate rights. Yet anyone can clearly see the difference between owning a handgun, whether for hunting, target shooting or personal protection, and a nuclear missile. Such advocates often mention that nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction are already owned by private companies for the purpose of research and development but fail to mention…on behalf of the government! The dropping of context, that such weapons have been ceded to government control and only private companies with government authorization may own them for the specific purpose of research, is no accident. We do this because we are not anarchists. The proper role of government is to retaliate against the initiation of force, and the metaphysical nature of weapons of mass destruction is such that merely owning one is considered threat enough to prohibit them to individuals. This “owning” argument is also a smear of the meaning of the term “own”. Own means to hold dominion over and be able to use your property in your best judgment and in your own interest without violating the rights of others. A weapon of mass destruction cannot be used, at all, without violating rights. Private companies that “own” nuclear or other mass destructive weapons do so at the authorization of the government and do not have authorization begin their own, private atomic war.
Another line of attack employed against Ayn Rand is that she didn’t give specific, detailed analysis in “Atlas Shrugged” about whether Hank Rearden needed a Concealed Carry license. Ayn Rand writes the greatest philosophic novel of all time and she gets beat up over not dealing with CCW! Simply outrageous and so silly that I’m not going to address it! (“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.” – Ayn Rand)
Objectivism holds that ideas move the world and that the acceptance of certain ideas either promotes life or destroys it. Going further, is holds that rights are part of the nature of Man and must be discovered by Man in order for Man to live as Man, hence Man qua Man. Yet, some gun advocates hold the catchy but false statement that “The second amendment upholds all the others”, as a truth. Such a position invalidates the role of ideas and the mind in governing human actions and reduces our rights to the level of tribal violence and the dictum that “He who has the most guns wins”. Nevertheless Ayn Rand noted the second amendment is our constitutional right to bear arms, ("A man has a constitutional right to bear arms.” – Ayn Rand), which I firmly place in the Founders view that we should be secure in our own person and property. I do not claim to be a constitutional scholar but in my view, constitutionally speaking, the first amendment is our bulwark against repression because it gives us the ability to make a reasoned and rational appeal to a man’s mind.
Some gun advocates use Nazi Germany as an example of how the second amendment would be used, but this flies in the face of the actual evidence and actually gives even further proof of Ayn Rand’s statement : “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.” The history of the period does not record frequent or wide spread rebellion against NAZI governmental authority but rather records victims at concentration camps, even when they had nothing further to lose, walked calmly and quietly into the gas chambers. They accepted the idea that they were wrong and thus perished. Only a person convinced of his rational right to defend himself will use a gun for such a purpose. The people of Germany had been convinced of the need to sacrifice. They had accepted the moral law of the NAZI party “Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz” (The common good comes before the individual). They needed Thomas Jefferson not Smith & Wesson. What they got was Immanuel Kant and Adolf Hitler.
Another confusing smear is equating nuclear power, or chemical power (coal, gas, et al) with a weapon. The attack is subtle in trying to make a connection between the risks we accept to power our homes and businesses with a same sort of risk (i.e. threat) we accept or don’t with weapons. By the trick of making a power plant a weapon, the term weapon itself looses all meaning and, literally, anything could be a weapon (a pencil, a roll of quarters, a pillow, and no doubt in the hands of James Bond they are). Yet we recognize an essential difference between a handgun, which is certainly a risk, and a tank or a Patriot Missile System. Detractors would do well to review the body of jurisprudence related to this issue. As Ayn Rand noted in a 1973 interview, “It's a complex, technical issue in the philosophy of law.”
At the end of the day, what do gun advocates want? Honestly I’m not completely certain. It seems to me they want the ability to protect themselves and their property from immediate threat or harm and that seems to be a reasonable and rational objective. However that is a far cry from being in possession of nuclear launch codes, missile systems, chemical weapons and so forth.
Ayn Rand left us the greatest tool imaginable, a fully consistent, rational philosophy that accurately describes reality. Those who wish to defend gun ownership would be well served to studying her philosophy, as well as the relevant contemporary and historical material, and apply the principles of Objectivism to the problem.
This article is a response to Scott's article "The Objectivist Position on Gun Control" Please read both and let us know where we got it right, and where we got it wrong in the comments section.
Bibliography
Atlas Shrugged – Ayn Rand
The Virtue of Selfishness – Ayn Rand
Capitalism the Unknown Ideal – Ayn Rand
The Ominous Parallels – Leonard Peikoff, PhD
Objectivism – The Philosophy of Ayn Rand – Leonard Peikoff, PhD
The Revolutionary Writings of John Adams – C. Bradley Thompson, PhD
John Adams and the Spirit of Liberty – C. Bradley Thompson, PhD
The Writings of Thomas Jefferson
The Constitution of the United States of America
The Declaration of Independence
The Origins of Totalitarianism – Hannah Arendt
The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich – William L. Shirer
Web based essay by Richard Lawerence - http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/essays/guns.html
The Holocaust Chronicles
The Basic Writings of Kant
Comments
My thoughts:
I agree with the right to own guns for personal protection and hunting. I draw the line at owning grenade launchers and tanks. These are items of war and not conducive to personal protection or putting meat on the table.
I have a conceal carry license. It is a mark if you will from the government that gives me permission to carry a gun in public, off of my property, without others knowing I have one. It is the sanction of the governmental body of my state that says I have been trained, investigated and have been shown to be responsible enough to not violate the rights of others while carrying a concealed gun among the citizens of my state – my neighbors. To me, this is the correct function and responsibility of the government.
Even more fundamentally, I agree that ideas are the arms that we should fight for and bear. I would argue that is the reason freedom to express ideas is the first amendment, and bearing a physical means to protect those ideas (ourselves and our property) is the second. Without the first, the second has little meaning.
***********
Germany outlawed Smith&Wesson to help enforce the common good. Without Smith&Wesson Thomas Jefferson is no good. Had those sent to the Concentration camps not been stripped of their Rights they could have torn down the German NAZI state.
RSS feed for comments to this post