Category Archives: Uncategorized

In John Locke’s post “Of Open Carry Rights,” he argues that, while ownership of guns is a private issue and therefore outside the realm of public discourse, the display of dangerous weapons out in the open automatically makes them a point of public interest, and thus arguable in the public sphere. From this point, Locke makes clear that open carry should be restricted because it violates others’ right to life by impeding upon their sense of security. While certainly he’s right that open carry should be restricted because exposure of weapons is an unnecessary incitement to violence, the rhetoric Locke uses to reach this conclusion is faulty because his initial argument lends itself to slippery slope. I refute the argument Locke makes in place of another one that rests on more solid ground.

Locke’s his argument begins with an explanation that the right to own guns, as secured in the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, is an extension of man’s god-given right to life. As he states in “Liberalism,” people must keep “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In essence: because the government sometimes fails to do its job sufficiently, we must be able to overthrow it—in order to do this, we must be able to arm ourselves. This logic may have been acceptable in a time when man was scattered across the country, when society lacked a practical and reliable infrastructure to ensure the safety of its citizens. However, it is no longer acceptable because we have a steady system of law enforcement in addition to a number of checks upon government (through its multiple branches and through the press). In the modern age, improved communication and delegations of resources has taken the place of much of the need for strong individuals. Due to the interconnectedness of men, I argue that private ownership of guns is no longer a private issue.

As demonstrated in the past few years in the case of the Aurora, Colorado shooting, the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting, and more recently the concert shooting in Las Vegas, current gun laws are not sufficiently protecting the rights to life of public. It’s evident that the ideology of protecting individual rights as a solution to protect the rights of all is not working. When it comes at the small sacrifice of unregulated gun ownership, protecting these rights are certainly tantamount to individual liberties. To go about ensuring these collective freedoms, I believe that any private ownership of guns should be thoroughly regulated by the government (and perhaps restricted) because the country’s lax stance on guns has obviously not been sufficient to prevent the deaths of over one thousand people due to mass shootings alone.

If we’re to accept the idea that gun ownership is an extension of the right to life in the first place, we’re placing an unfeasible level of accountability at the level of each individual. Even if this necessitates restrictions of the ‘natural’ right to life on the individual level, the collective freedom of the public will be increased, and consequently society will be all the free. This pragmatism may involve some sacrifices, but they’re certainly fewer than those necessitated by Locke’s unwillingness to put his arguments into context. In fact, Locke defies his own logic by conceding that open is false, while still championing the right of gun ownership. The simple fact of the matter is that guns cannot be an extension of the right to life because impede on others’ life to right in the first place.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/mass-shootings-in-america/

In your opinion, the current tax reform plan is ideal because it lowers taxes on the wealthy. You argue as though Ayn Rand would support this reform that raises taxes on lower to middle class Americans. And that you deserve tax relief due to the tremendous amount of dedication and time it required to become a doctor. You deserve the financial benefits of your career due to life experiences that you were not able to do because of the educational choice you made.  

But wouldn’t Ayn Rand be opposed to any further taxation? The mere potential that a tax reform would raise taxes on even a small portion of society would upset her staunch opposition to any excessive taxation, or even any taxation that exceeds an amount to fund what is extremely necessary.

Perhaps, though, it is better to focus on your perceived ranking of rights. You argue that your educational pursuits and career make you more deserving of your financial earnings. You argue that the tax reform bill is necessary because it lowers the taxes on those that truly deserve their wealth. The increase in taxes on middle and lower class Americans is unfortunate, but not enough to negate your support of the bill. By nature, though, all “men” are created equal, with full inalienable rights. Those who will see their taxes increase have just as much a right to their property as you do. Not because of their education or work ethic, but because of their natural rights. All must be opposed to any infringement on anyone’s rights. Although you must take care of yourself, as an individual, you must also ensure that rights are protected for all. Particularly, you must ensure that the government is doing what it ought to do, which is protect each citizen’s inalienable right. The government’s job is to do no more than what is necessary to protect rights, and this bill is in direct contradiction with the right to property.

While all have a right to their property though, society requires that individuals give up a portion of their rights to enter into a community. Essentially, if you choose to live in a society you are entering into a contract that allows the government to tax you what is necessary to ensure a protection of rights for its people. Similarly, when deciding on your own volition to go to medical school, you entered into a contract to obtain loans which you would pay back upon completing your education. The contract of society, and also the contracts in which you enter within society, must be obeyed. As an individual, you had the choice to give away a certain amount of your property to obtain an education. Your individual choice does not allow you more rights to your property later in life.

Although you argue for the tax reform based on individualism, you fail to acknowledge that you are supporting a piece of legislation that infringes on individuals rights. Your support of such a bill is an encouragement of government encroachment on fundamental rights.

Ayn Rand believes that American citizens should have the right to carry arms whenever, wherever, and whatever type they see fit. In the article Gun Control Regulations Are Pointless, she makes the argument that “if someone wants to own a gun because it makes them feel safe, or because they enjoy the sport of hunting, then the government does not have the right to keep them from doing so.” She defends this individualistic position by stating that “man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself.” However, there have been a number of incidents that have made someone’s ability to own a gun less of a priority since it is indirectly harming the public due to mass gun violence.

With the concept of open carry, people assume that having a firearm in their possession means that they will be able to defend themselves against an attacker. Under the idea of individualist pursuit, Rand believes it is lawful to be able to access your own belongings at any time so that someone can achieve personal happiness “because they have a right to self-defense.” However, people are not considering the dangerous indirect consequences of the open carry policy. People are not considering that by carrying a gun, they are automatically making themselves an initial target to skillfully planned killers. Also, there is the possibility that the shooter has more experience with guns than the owner of the gun and the shooter may be capable of taking the gun away from them. This is risking the gun owner’s life by possessing an object that might actually harm them because they are not fully equip to handle a given situation.

Furthermore, we must continue to consider the dangers associated with lax gun control laws. There should be more gun regulations so that people do not harm themselves or their loved ones. More people have been committing mass shootings because they have easy access to large quantities of ammunition. A lot of the mass shooters were diagnosed as mentally unstable, questioning whether or not it was safe for these individuals to even have access to a gun, let alone additional heavy machinery. There was also a period of time when children were accidentally shooting people because they would manage to get ahold of their parents’ gun, not knowing the repercussions of the object. These instances could have been avoided if we had stronger laws that regulated how easy it is for someone to take hold of a gun and where a gun is allowed to be kept.

In contrast with Rand, I state in my book, The Public and Its Problems that “the perception of consequences which are projected in important ways beyond the persons and associations directly concerned in them is the source of a public.” (61) The fact the hundreds of innocent people are being killed each year due to violence is a public concern. Yes, implementing stronger laws that restrict gun owners to having a certain amount of guns in certain places, does infringe on an individual’s pursuit of happiness. However, taking away the rights of individuals is necessary if we are trying to stop the indirect consequences of death taking place. Rand even states that “someone with a clean record is not immune to psychotic breaks, so even someone who passes a background check with flying colors could still use their gun in destructive ways.”  Therefore, if it is possible that someone unsuspecting could begin using weaponry to harm the public, there should be laws that restrict the presence of guns in public areas to avoid potentially fatal consequences.

With, a society as large as ours, it is no longer reasonable to think in individualistic terms. Rand argues that “if a person is wanting to purchase a gun with the intent of using it in criminal ways, they will find a gun one way or another.” However, this is exactly why we need to enforce stronger gun laws, so that people who should not have guns, won’t have access to them. We must consider the potential consequences that arise from not imposing laws that benefit the safety of the entire society.

The biggest mistake we can make in our lives is to be complicit in the state’s seizure of what is rightfully ours. The argument put forth by this medical student exemplifies just that. This student is proud of the tax deduction made to his future income yet does not seem to see the bigger picture. Any taxation by the state is a form of theft. The lowered tax rate through this bill is an insult and should not be accepted as anything but.

Yes, for the creation of roads and social services there must be an influx of money but it should be given voluntarily. Any educated and free thinking person would realize the merits of voluntarily giving a portion of their earnings to the construction of our society. But in no way is the taxation of our property a representation of freedom. It is not the fault of the medical student that this is seen as a personal victory. We are taught to believe that taxation, in any form, will benefit the many.  No one told him that the real victory is the security he will feel once his debts are paid and his earnings are accounted for regularly. Only then will he feel the invitation of giving voluntarily so that he may be a part in the betterment of society.

This young man needs to understand that the only reason government should exist is to protect our rights and our property. That includes the salary that he is so willing to part with once the percentage was in a reasonable range for him. Whether is be 4% or 90%, the taxation of our money is a crime that should not be overlooked. The government has overstepped their place in society and we have allowed them to do so by calling tax cuts “wins”. This is not a win. This is a representation of how the smallest change in our favor leaves us fat and satisfied.  

Why has this student not questioned where his money is going? If anything other than 100% of his money goes to services that are dedicated to protecting his rights, why is he not enraged? Why is this young man satisfied with the tax cut when anyone not willing to do what it takes to survive is being handed his property? How many schools or parks does his money fund that he will never see the benefits of? The type of theft that is happening right before his eyes is astonishing.

Another mistake this young man makes is that he believes he has earned a tax cut based on the youthful opportunities he has “missed out on”. I do not feel any pity for him or his missed opportunities. These are decisions he has made to strengthen his utility and he will have to live with that. The “earned” tax break, whether the taxes were unjust in the first place or not, is a weak way of looking at the situation. No matter what you sacrifice, no matter how hard you work, no one owes anyone anything. We must not let our citizens be weakened by thoughts of what is owed to them. Other than the salary for which the young man will soon be hired for, no breaks in life are owed to him.

The recognition of the amount of taxation this student had to go through was the first step. Now, he needs to question why he is being taxed at all. He needs to know where it is going and why he may never see the benefits of that and how he is complicit in the theft of his own earnings. Because he believes he earned the right to have lower taxes; he will forever live in the state of mind that things in life are owed to him just like the people who believe the money of the rich are owed to them.

John Taylor Mill holds a very restricting and narrow view on the laws of gun control in the United States. The atrocities across our country are absolutely terrible but the government’s role is not to be taking away our basic liberties. Mill argues on a utilitarian or “greatest happiness” principle. My biggest concern with this rhetoric is this way of decision making has a tendency to target individual’s rights outlined in my Second Treatise. The rights to life, liberty and property are essential to maintaining a free and rational society. This Op-Ed specifically deals with the rights to property.

The reason the American people rebelled against the British crown was to join a free society. In a free and rational society, each individual is entitled to life, liberty, and property and the right to protect those rights. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This text, straight from the constitution, defends the argument. The example I use in the Second Treatise comes with the situation regarding a mugger. The mugger forces the muggee to make a decision “your money or your life.” In this case, choose both. The mugger applies “force without right upon a [your] person makes a state of war both where there is, and is not, a common judge.”

The right to protect your own property is a natural right and guns achieve this purpose. The government seizing the citizen’s guns would be punishing the masses for the inability of few to follow the laws of the land. I believe it can be compared to taking away one’s right to drive because car accidents have hurt people and been used as weapons. The ultimate goal of a safe society is achieved at the heavy cost of freedom. Mill argues that since seventy eight percent of the US population doesn’t own a firearm, society would be achieving a greater happiness by taking away the rights of the twenty two percent that do. Mill is arguing to strip natural rights of eighty one million people in America because a small percentage cannot seem to follow the laws.

I agree with certain gun control regulation. For example, extensive background checks and mental illness checks should be required. If the government cannot trust you to abide by the laws set in place by the civil society, you should not receive the same rights as every other citizen. The boundary and decision on gun control should be shaped around whether it is a public or private issue I believe it is not made public until the public cannot trust you with the responsibility of a weapon i.e. background checks and health checks. Until then, the issue remains private. “Must men alone be debarred the common privilege of opposing force with force, which nature allows so freely to all other creatures for their preservation from injury? I answer: self defense is a part of the law of nature, nor can it be denied the community, even against the king himself…”

I understand the point Mill is trying to make and the solution believed to come from it, but our government is here to protect our rights not seize them. As soon as our right to protect one’s property is seized, where does the authority stop in taking all of our freedoms?  The “greatest happiness” is not worth the cost of liberty to eighty one million Americans. This utilitarian view point would soon start to attack more of our three primary freedoms using the same argument of the “greatest happiness.” The precedent is dangerous to the people of the United States.

There has been a submission under the name Ayn Rand that I would like to refute. In her argument Rand states that it is in the right for Whitefish energy to raise the prices of their services to Puerto Rico and its relief efforts. I, John Mill, claim that the actions taken by Whitefish were unethical and are both a public issue and stand against the greatest happiness principle of utilitarianism.

To set the scene, a devastating hurricane hit the shores of Puerto Rico, leaving the entire country without electricity and without the proper infrastructure to get their power up and running again. I would agree with Rand’s assessment of the situation as an emergency, something she defines as “an unchosen, unexpected event, limited in time that creates conditions under which human survival is impossible. In an emergency situation, men’s primary goal is to combat the disaster, escape the danger, and restore normal conditions.” Because this is an emergency it is the exact time that people need to unite together and promote utility, not the opposite. It was during this emergency Whitefish agreed to help Puerto Rico with their electricity issues, they even boasted about the speed and efficiency of their service, particularly in rough conditions. The only problem was that Whitefish price gauged Puerto Rico, charging them three times the amount they would normally charge. They did this because they saw Puerto Rico as vulnerable and in severe need of their services. Ayn Rand thinks that this sort of behavior is acceptable from a company, and I disagree.

Under my belief of utilitarianism, collective happiness should be held as the most important factor when making a decision, not personal gain or selfishness. I understand that this may require some self-sacrifice monetarily, but I believe that the “standard is not the agent’s own greatest happiness, but the greatest amount of happiness altogether…Utilitarianism, therefore, could only attain its end by the general cultivation of nobleness of character.” In order to achieve the goals that we wish to achieve as a society we must occasionally put others first, and in doing so we can become the best nation and society possible. I believe that the goal of happiness should be the primary goal for any society “Happiness is the sole end of human action, and the promotion of it the test by which to judge of all human conduct.” In order to achieve this happiness, we must put each other and our society first. This is something that Whitefish refuses to do as they jack up the prices of their services for Puerto Rico, knowing that the country has no choice but to pay the premium, surely this is wrong.

Rand would argue that it is wrong to force companies to lower their prices, or prevent them from raising prices when they know they can. However, this is not an issue of right and wrong “One of the strongest obstacles to the reception of the doctrine that Utility or Happiness is the criterion of right and wrong, has been drawn from the idea of Justice.” There is right or wrong. This issue, as are all issues, is simply a matter of deciding which side of the equation promotes the greatest happiness. Puerto Rico is a devastated country that has just dealt with a terrible natural disaster and is in need to help from outside of their country, surely coming to their aide would promote the greatest happiness. Once we have determined aiding Puerto Rico promotes the greatest happiness, we have no choice but to side with them on this issue and claim that Whitefish should offer their services under the standard rate.

In Ayn Rand’s article “Natural Disaster Relief Efforts” it is mentioned that Hurricane Maria made landfall on the island of Puerto Rico and created a humanitarian crisis for its population. The Puerto Rico Electric Power authority originally entered into a $300 million dollar contract with Whitefish to repair their island’s energy grid, where they charged 2-3 times their normal rate due to the risk Whitefish was taking with Puerto Rico. Since Puerto Rico is in a state of emergency and Whitefish had the resources to help quickly and efficiently Ayn Rand found this increase in cost to be moral and rational. Ayn Rand states that it would even be immoral for Puerto Rico to enter into a contract that was less costly because it would provide fewer resources and Whitefish is known for mobilizing quickly and working effectively in challenging situations. Rand also mentioned that Whitefish was just compensating for the great risk they were taking on with helping Puerto Rico.

I have to strongly disagree with Rand’s viewpoint on this topic, since Puerto Rico is in an emergency situation they originally agreed to this contact because of  the desperate need to restore their territory, but PREPA’s CEO changed his mind after being convinced by the public that what Whitefish is doing is selfish and unreasonable. The greater good in this situation is threatened, and I do not agree with Whitefish’s decision to increase their costs to aid to Puerto Rico. As mentioned in Utilitarianism  “The Utilitarian morality does recognize in human beings the power of sacrificing their own greatest good for the good of others. It only refuses to admit that the sacrifice itself is a good. A sacrifice which does not increase, or tend to increase, the sum total of happiness, it considers as wasted”. Puerto Rico is in a very desperate and vulnerable position and on top of this already heart-breaking and devastating tragedy Whitefish is only making the situation more uneasy by increasing the costs of their services to benefit themselves, which results in a Whitefish failing to make the sacrifice to benefit the greater good. Whitefish could have provided their services for 2-3 times less, or possibly lessen their original cost to aid to the already suffering Puerto Rico. The greater good, which is the overall island of Puerto Rico would be under great jeopardy if they continued to accepted these costly services with the belief that this is the safest option when it comes to restoring Puerto Rico, therefore leaving Puerto Rico very conflicted and put under even more stress. It is understandable that Whitefish is taking a risk by aiding to Puerto Rico, but the devastation that Puerto Rico is experiencing and amount of people affected greatly overpowers the inconvenience of Whitefish.

The public and political outrage in Puerto Rico due to Whitefish’s cost increase is completely understandable when acknowledging the fact that Whitefish believed they needed to raise their prices to aid to Puerto Rico when Puerto Rico is in an already devastating position, and PREPA’s CEO’s decision to break the contract in the best interest of the people in Puerto Rico is completely valid. After Puerto Rico withdrew from the contract with Whitefish, Whitefish ceased construction on Puerto Rico’s main transition line, which was in desperate need of repair. This shows that Whitefish could not sacrifice themselves to greatly benefit the island of Puerto Rico. Whitefish is going completely against Utilitarianism by their blatant disregard for “the greater good for the greatest number”. Judging from these events it seems that Whitefish is prioritizing their own unfair contract over aiding to an island in desperate need of repair.

I have said it before, and will say it again, that I do not know much about guns or the topic of gun control. Because of this, I cannot say that in the past I had a particular opinion as to whether or not guns should be restricted by the government, and I honestly did not see the importance of discussing it years ago, as it seemed arbitrary to me. However, in recent years, the issue of guns has become so prevalent in society that I will concede that it is a relevant topic and is something of importance within our society, enough so that I will share my thoughts.

I would like to begin by saying I believe there is importance in acknowledging the difference between laws and regulations. Laws are necessary limitations that the government has a right to enforce in order to maintain a just society. They must be carried out in society in order to protect the rights we have as individuals. Laws enable government officials to set boundaries that clearly define an act as legal or illegal, giving them the authority to deem acts criminal so that consequences can be carried out. Regulations, on the other hand, are rules that infringe on the individual rights of people within society. They are subjective in nature that give governments the ability to impede on individuals’ rights. Therefore, gun regulations are not something with which I am able to agree.

Ownership of guns is an individualistic pursuit. If someone wants to own a gun because it makes them feel safe, or because they enjoy the sport of hunting, then the government does not have the right to keep them from doing so. As discussed in my book, Virtue of Selfishness, the idea of achieving personal happiness is key in society as “man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself”. I believe that it should be man’s highest moral priority to achieve happiness in and of himself.

Not only do I oppose government regulation on guns as it would strip certain individuals of their ability to be happy, I also do not see the point in imposing pointless rules on the members of a society. I have faith that if a personal is wanting to purchase a gun with the intent of using it in criminal ways, they will find a gun one way or another. Enforcing gun regulations will not going to stop criminals from having them. I do believe that guns are used as tools for murder, such as concealed handguns which are not carried with the intent of killing animals, but I do not think there is a way to decipher if that is the intent of the person buying the gun. Someone with a clean record is not immune to psychotic breaks, so even someone who passes a background check with flying colors could still use their gun in destructive ways. The argument could also be made that the gun is not for the intent of killing others, but for protection in the case of a dangerous situation. Handguns could be used to protect oneself from an attacker. This said, I cannot think of a way to allow individuals to protect themselves without inadvertently giving them the freedom to kill others.

In conclusion, I think that the government should not regulate guns because I stand firm in my opinion of government regulations in general. I believe that people do not have a right to murder, but they do have a right to self defense. I also believe that regulations will not keep criminals from obtaining guns. A gun is simply a tool. In its physical form it does not create any issues. It is the person using it that causes destruction, so regulating the object is not a practical way to prevent the issues that our society faces today. Because of this I am forced to refute the comment made that states, “more people would be safe from mass shootings and homicide” because I disagree that gun regulation would keep homicide and mass shootings from occurring.

President Trump has officially acknowledged the opioid addiction as a national problem over the past few weeks. He went so far as to declare it a 90-day public health emergency. President Trump, however, has not issued a specific plan to address the issue and it does not seem like he will do so in the near future. Many suggest that there should be an expansion in the treatment of insurance coverage for Americans who struggle with opioids. Yet I urge you, the reader, to think about it twice. You might be suspicious of my intention and well, do I approve of the prohibition of drugs? No, I don’t. I think drugs should be sold openly because it is the individual’s right to do with them as they please. We must not forget our individual rights, our freedom and our pursuit of happiness.

President Trump should reconsider his past statement. This is not a crisis. If the individual wants to consume drugs and the result is a fatal overdose, then the decision of the individual must be respected. If drugs were to be sold legally, it would put the whole underworld out of business. Also, all the drug traffickers would be put out of business because they wouldn’t have to commit crimes to buy and sell overpriced illegal drugs. We as a society need to pressure the system to become a country free of government intervention, free of the regulation and the controls of an oppressive system. I must clarify that this does not mean that I am in favor of any type of handouts or free medical services that would come with it. It is simply a matter of economic policies. Allow me to explain, no one in a free market can become a monopolist and it is only under government regulation that you can keep competitors out of the field. Free health services are not free if there is a monopoly in every overpriced and restricted drug.

Governor Charlie Baker’s plans to increase the requirements necessary to buy opioids oversteps the true intentions of government. A true government should respect the liberties of the people and their decisions, regardless of the outcome if it does not cause harm to others. Although we do not live in a free market we must do our best to live our lives to the best our ability, guided by our own moral values.