As a fan of Ayn Rand, I’m trouble by some of her views on gun ownership. Consider these statements:
Q: What is your opinion of gun control laws?
A: I do not know enough about it to have an opinion, except to say that it is not of primary importance. Forbidding guns or registering them is not going to stop criminals from having them; nor is it a great threat to the private, non-criminal citizen if he has to register the fact that he has a gun. It is not an important issue, unless you’re ready to begin a private uprising right now, which isn’t very practical. [Ford Hall Forum, 1971]
Q: What’s your attitude toward gun control?
A: It is a complex, technical issue in the philosophy of law. Handguns are instruments for killing people — they are not carried for hunting animals — and you have no right to kill people. You do have the right to self-defense, however. I don’t know how the issue is going to be resolved to protect you without giving you the privilege to kill people at whim.
[Ford Hall Forum, 1973]
Source: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/?showtopic=11624
One of the good things about objectivism is that we have no idols, so I can disagree with her if she’s wrong.
The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law. But a government that initiates the employment of force against men who had forced no one, the employment of armed compulsion against disarmed victims, is a nightmare infernal machine designed to annihilate morality: such a government reverses its only moral purpose and switches from the role of protector to the role of man’s deadliest enemy, from the role of policeman to the role of a criminal vested with the right to the wielding of violence against victims deprived of the right of self-defense. Such a government substitutes for morality the following rule of social conduct: you may do whatever you please to your neighbor, provided your gang is bigger than his.
Source: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government.html
In the Journals of Ayn Rand, she admits that depriving men of arms can cause them harm:
“With modern technique and modern weapons at its disposal, a ruthless minority can hold millions in slavery indefinitely. What can one thousand unorganized, unarmed men do against one man with a machine gun?” This passage could be taken to suggest that weapons in individuals’ hands are necessary to fight against tyranny (an argument sometimes used against gun control). However, it says nothing about the role of guns in a free society, so could be considered off-point.
Source: http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/essays/guns.html
Here are her views on the 2nd Amendment itself: From theLetters of Ayn Rand, in a letter to a Mr. Flynn: “A man has a constitutional right to bear arms. But if a man has declared that he intends to murder you, it is not your duty to provide the knife and place it in his hands.”
And yet:
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” (From “What Is Capitalism?”)
“A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control, i.e., under objectively defined laws.” (From “The Nature of Government”)
Some final quotes:
Weapons are amoral in that a weapon is not capable of making a moral decision. The weapon user makes a moral decision every time he/she chooses to use or to not use the weapon.
The second amendment exists in the milieu of the entire Constitution and, more specifically, in that group of amendments that are intended to insure specific freedoms for US citizens. It is difficult to say that any one or more of these freedoms is more or less important than the others. However, if I were intent on subjugating a populace, I would first work to limit freedoms of speech, assembly, property, habeas corpus, press, religion, and other interpersonal communications. Once the populace is “properly” subservient, removing their personal weapons should be fairly easy.
Those are interesting views, and we’ve already seen limits on free speech, property, religion, habeas corpus, etc. I know Ayn Rand often uses the word “gun” as a metaphor for something else, which is a mistake under the rules of objectivism which demands one be literal and not subjective.
So how can a gun owner treat Ayn Rand? Perhaps by embracing the best part of her philosophy such as accepting that A is A, always searching for a right and wrong instead of believing that everything is shades of grey, accepting one’s individuality, rejecting collectivism, and never allowing another man or a State to become Dominus (master) over you.
Something is missing here. If your goal was to list Rand’s thoughts on guns and gun policy then why say that you “can disagree” with her? If you can and do disagree then go ahead and show what statement of hers you disagree with and provide your own arguments. Otherwise, this is a variant of “Argument from Intimidation”.
Well, I think it’s pretty easy to see which statements I disagree with. For example, I don’t view the government as a policeman. I don’t think handguns are “instruments for killing people” but tools that fire projectiles at large speed. I can kill people with a knife, a baseball bat, I can even drop a piano on somebody’s head. Thus Ayn Rand was wrong there.
Suffice to say, Ayn Rand was not intimidated by anyone when she was alive, so I doubt I can intimidate her now. Besides, my purpose isn’t to intimidate Ayn Rand but to discuss her ideas, ideas I support 99.99% of the time.
In the end, Ayn wasn’t an enemy of guns, but she wasn’t a friend of guns either. For someone who hated the middle-ground, who demanded one pick a side, she failed to pick a side on this issue.
Ok, Rand’s position that government’s only role is to protect the individual rights (the “policeman’) is at the center of her political philosophy and directly follows from her ethics of rational egoism. Are you then an anarchist or a statist?
The primary purpose of guns (and weapons is general) is to kill. That’s what makes them different from any other object that can be used to kill but has a different primary purpose, piano, baseball bat, or car. Rationally, people own guns so that they could kill or cause physical harm in order to defend themselves. Weapons are huge amplifiers of physical force and, because government has a monopoly on the retaliatory use of force it must have a mechanism of making sure that its monopoly is not broken.
Ayn Rand did not pick a side on this issue because both sides are wrong: the side that says that only the state should have the weapons and the side that says that any private citizen should own any weapon he may choose. There no right to nuclear weapons. Because this is an issue of the philosophy of law and no theory has been developed yet it is too early to pick sides. Rand did state general philosophic principles but did not give a precise answer because she did not know. Nobody knows the answer yet. I wish there was a clear answer but as Einstein said “Everything should be made as simple as possible but no simpler”.
I’m a right-libertarian, neither anarchy nor statism, just small, limited government, what Ayn Rand wanted.
The general purpose of a gun is to fire a projectile, whether it kills or not is irrelevant, anything can kill. When I go to the gun range I’m only “killing” paper targets. Besides, objects don’t have purposes, people do. My computer doesn’t write for me, I type and command the machine.
Yes guns can be used to kill, but they can also be used to save lives. If I kill the man that is trying to murder me, was that not a good thing? If guns are evil, why did Martin Luther King, an advocate of non-violence applied for a license to carry one? Could it be there are times one has no choice but to fight and with a gun one has a fighting chance?
Both sides cannot be wrong, Ayn Rand clearly stated that one side is right, one side is wrong, and the middle is always evil. If she didn’t know, I can accept that, but I will not engage in subjectivism because she did not know.
As for nuclear weapons, that’s an illogical example. Like saying that if we legalize gay marriage we must then legalize pedophilia, polygamy, and bestiality. One has nothing to do with the others. Talking about nuclear weapons is like discussing life in other planets, pointless. Besides, nuclear weapons defend countries, they don’t defend one individual but many. A woman doesn’t need a nuclear weapon to fight a rapist, but she needs a gun and women have shot rapists in the past. All you have to do is google “woman shoots rapist” and you’ll see.
The fact that Hank Rearden starts carrying a gun after he’s facing death threats shows that Ayn Rand could not have considered guns to be evil, that would be illogical since Rearden represents good, and when Rearden gets that gun he’s at a point in his life when he’s done sacrificing for others. For you see, not carrying a gun is a form of self-sacrifice, you’re making it easier for an adversary to kill you. Carrying a gun is an act of self-love, self-preservation, and self-esteem, you’re valuing your life and refusing to sacrifice it for the needs of a murderer.
If you live in Chattanooga, I would love to take you to the gun range. If not, I suggest you find a gun range in your area and experience the joy of guns.
Thanks for the invitation, Greg, I live in Boston. While I am critical of your thinking especially when implying that Rand was not consistent I am a complete supporter of the 2nd amendment and think it is paramount as a foundation of the American rights respecting society.
Seriously, two sides cannot be wrong? Ayn Rand was spectacular at busting up false dichotomies: when people are told that morality is either to sacrifice yourself to others because the other choice to is sacrifice others to oneself she gave a 3rd and true option – no sacrifice but voluntary self-interested action – cooperation and trade. You are misunderstanding her quote. When she says “there are two sides to every issue” she puts whatever truths there are on one side and whatever falsehoods on the other. “The middle is always evil” means that when you do know what is true and what is false it is wrong to compromise and accept some falsehood in addition to the truth. It is evil because you know that something is false yet you treat it as something as true.
Now, on the question to what extent people can own guns (more broadly, weapons in general) a position that a state can only own and use guns and a position that citizens can own whatever weapons they desire without any restrictions – both positions are on one side – false. On the true side is a position that government in doing its proper job of making citizens safe from initiation of force must make sure that these tools of force – weapons are not in the hands of people who may want to undermine the government. Where to draw the line is a difficult problem that currently has no valid solution. Thats is why Ayn Rand could not and did not give a precise answer. You are criticizing her for not picking a position 1 or 2 but she did rightly think that both are wrong.
I theoretically could engage into a discussion of where to draw the line but will not because it is not the most pressing issue for me and the argument is complex. “The right to keep and bear arms” does it include just guns, or grenades, automatic guns, machine guns, or, I don’t know, plasma guns of the future? So, one topic is what arms are, how to define them. Because if defined them as as weapons the nuclear bombs will qualify. I agree with a point that is implied in your example that guns are needed for self-defense. I would add for self-defense when the police is not available. This disqualifies nuclear bombs or F-18s. But I don’t know what principle to use to draw the line. Next topic is whether mentally ill should be allowed to have guns. This issue is complex because it is not the role of government to decide who is mentally fit and who is not. I don’t know how to address it. Third, it is in the Declaration of Independence that people have a right to abolish a government that stopped representing them. They need guns for that. So, then what kind should be allowed and how do you make sure that it is not a coup by some faction but the will of the people? All of these questions and more must be taken into consideration when deciding what a proper gun policy should be and, as I see it, only a very smart legal philosopher that both knows the correct philosophy and the law of this country can propose something exact.
My point is Ayn Rand did not violate any of her principles here. The fact that she did not have an exact answer to a such a complex problem is not her fault – she was not omniscient.
Also, if you agree with Rand’s view of the government then why do you disagree with her calling government “the policeman”? Her view is that government is limited to police, courts and the army – the policeman, the judge and the soldier.
This is what I so loved about Ayn Rand and she did not pick side, yet stayed in the middle and I agree with her and we are own problem in this country, not guns!
What is the big question is how are guns coming or getting into our country and getting into the hands of many wrong hands including mentally ill, children, etc.?
Yes, guns are for self defense! Don’t you think we need more teaching about guns in the United States. We tend to create problems for ourselves in this world it seems? When we still have high poverty, more crime and it is because of money. For the lack of money is the criminal and people are mad and angry! We want and we want and we take and we take! The poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer, however not blaming those who work hard for their money, but if we have so much money in this world, could we not be the real criminals at hand?
I’m glad you love Ayn Rand, but she did pick sides. “One side is right, the other side is wrong, but the middle is always evil.” Rand was proud to be judgmental, she wasn’t one of those people looking for shades of gray.
Consider this quote:
“When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit.”
“Don’t you think we need more teaching about guns in the United States”
Why? Do rap musicians need more teaching about music? Do pornographers need more teaching about audio? A lot of porn movies have terrible audio yet the XXX industry is worth billions.
“When we still have high poverty, more crime and it is because of money.”
Actually, we don’t have more crime, gun ownership is way up and crime is way down. As for poverty, our poor are rich compared to people in other countries, such as Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Kenya, etc. When a Walmart worker can afford an iPhone, that shows you how great this country is.
“The poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer,”
Another myth, it’s in fact a lie repeated so many times people believe in it. It’s INDIVIDUALS who get richer or poorer, do you cry for a rich person when he declares bankruptcy, when he loses everything? Then don’t expect me to cry for a poor person who made bad decisions and finds himself with nothing. Freedom includes the freedom to fail.
I think you need to read more Ayn Rand. Read Atlas Shrugged for starters.
Here’s what she has to say about compromise:
“There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.”
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/compromise.html