tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post8394192134709382545..comments2024-03-30T00:09:27.602+13:00Comments on Not PC: "Arguments about [American] gun rights ... remain a mess"Peter Cresswellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-51097763936939217582022-06-07T18:17:57.768+12:002022-06-07T18:17:57.768+12:00McCasky's point about Ayn Rand having stressed...McCasky's point about Ayn Rand having stressed that government holds a monopoly on the use of force quotes from the following:<br /><br />"The difference between political power and any other kind of social 'power,' between a government and any private organization, is the fact that a government holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force. This distinction is so important and so seldom recognized today that I must urge you to keep it in mind. Let me repeat it: a government holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force.<br /><br />No individual or private group or private organization has the legal power to initiate the use of physical force against other individuals or groups and to compel them to act against their own voluntary choice." (“America’s Persecuted Minority: Big Business,”Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 46). <br /><br />The context is she was stating what is the case, and has been the case, not what should be the case.<br /><br />How can one say the government should have a legal monopoly on the use of force when one has the right to defend oneself? If one has the legal right to use retaliatory force to defend oneself, one can't then say the government should have a legal monopoly on the use of force. That would create a contradiction. The government should have a legal monopoly only on the *option* to be the first to use *retaliatory* force, and only in situations where exercising that option does not endanger a victim's life, limb, liberty, or property. It should also have a legal monopoly on the use of retaliatory force in the pursuit of justice.Terrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-22348513227140137402022-06-07T12:04:30.586+12:002022-06-07T12:04:30.586+12:00Condi Rice gave her reasoning for support of the r...Condi Rice gave her reasoning for support of the right to carry guns in the recent excellent Hoover podcast Goodfellows. She described how her father and his peers armed themselves and forced the white supremacists in Birmingham Alabama to back down when the local sheriff refused to protect them. The continuing right to carry guns is needed in this era of woke authoritarian govt. Kyle Rittenhouse proved that.Phil Snoreply@blogger.com