Carlos

Justification for Import Tariffs?

30 posts in this topic

Not to be nitpicky, but why is it a job for the defence department?

The current government structure of the government department of the border guard or quarantine or customs or whatever it is that each country calls it seems fine to me.

Since they won't be checking for drugs or shipments of farming products over the import quotas like they currently do; even with the exact same budget as today, they will be far more effective at keeping the things and people out that they should be keeping out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Notice I said, "In a proper government".

I took the Defense Department as one of the only branches in a proper government that included: Police, Military, Coast Guard, Border Patrol, Import/Export screening, FBI, CIA, and any other organization rationally needed for the defense of a nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did notice you said that. But I see the source of the confusion. I have just always delimited them differently to that.

I saw the departments in a proper government being

Police

Defence

Courts

Quarantine

Each of them having carefully defined goals. The checking of goods falls under Quarantine. They are all linked together in the overarching principle of the protection of individual rights. I have never had in my mind the Defence Department being the name for the entire government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael,

If we are going to continue this, let's open up a new thread. However:

I have never had in my mind the Defence Department being the name for the entire government.

Neither do I. I believe that it would be another branch of the Executive branch. There still would be Legislative and Judicial. All but one of the branches you mention would be sub-branches of the Defense Department.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

"I've gotten the impression that some Objectivists believe that private citizens have no right to own guns, but I haven't seen any explicit statement to that effect. Is it your position that citizens have no right to own guns?" 

 

I thought the general idea expressed was that individuals should have the right to own firearms meant for individual protection and/or recreation, not mass destruction. 

 

A 12 gauge shotgun with a five shell magazine is quite obviously, used for hunting.  A fully automatic rifle with a banana clip that holds 50 rounds, is quite obviously a tool of destruction/mass-murder. 

 

The topic of guns is the exact reason I got into politics, and then directly into Objectivism. Any gun can be a weapon. There always seems to be this false aura around assault weapons that makes them apparently more destructive.(they are also just as good as other guns for hunting) In the hands of an irrational person almost anything can be a weapon. I can do more damage with my car than most can do with a gun. I am an avid hunter, competition target shooter, and gun collector. I know that there is no reason that I should not be able to own a machine gun. I also know that I should be able to walk into wal-mart, give them cash, and walk out with one if I choose to. The argument always goes "what do you need that for"; well that is my business. The first gun made was considered cutting edge technology, yet anyone could own one. Not to mention the greatest advancements in weapons technology came from the private sector. You need to be careful what you put limitations on. Once you open the door to regulation it will only be opened wider. A nuke is not a gun, an accident with one could cause the death of un-told numbers. A nuke is not considered an "arm". Even an automatic weapon has to be aimed and deliberately fired to kill even one person. These "tools of destruction/mass murder" are highly valuable to collectors. In case some here are ignorant to current gun laws, they can all be purchased legally. Right now I can legally buy a fully automatic weapon, it is only a matter of what city you live in. Every police chief has the ability to sign the first of three pieces of paperwork necessary to comply with the ATF regulations regarding class 3 weapons.

To try to maybe put this into some sort of perspective, lets compare it to abortion. Would it be ok to say that abortion is legal but only if it is done before 6 or 7 months. Either a fetus has rights or it does not. We know the answer to this question, apply the same principal to guns. Either we have the right to bear arms or we don't. The right to life also means the right for an individual to protect it. If they are to be regulated I would want to know by who, by what standard, and more importantly by what right.

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites