Well I know the 1918 flu which killed 20-50 million has been recreated. I've heard rumors that someone 'improved it' as an experiment and got a higher kill ratio. Clearly we are just at the ground floor of being able to recreate genetic material.

You can already order have genetic material made to order GenScript will build them for you for .35 a base pair -- they have an online order discount http://www.genscript.com/gene_synthes...

This is just going to get faster and cheaper. Affordable solutions for doing it yourself will become available and you will be able to generate any genetic code that you want. I'm sure there will be lots of available 'interesting' sequences on the internet.

well, think about it like this-should Madame Curie have been experimenting with radio active material in her home? I think it is a moot point, because no one wants to have a nuclear bomb except countries and James Bond villains

Still a good idea.

Thanks, @zenphamy. Your points are all well taken.

But the market that Smith describes exists in a context of law. It doesn't provide that law, and what the limits of that law should be, is what we are discussing here. Also, people don't always act for their self-interest. But by and large, they tend to do so.

The moral right to survive that Cicero describes is ours, but it makes a big difference to us whether we live in an environment of continual warfare or general peace.

But I take the main point: that we do best when we are free, and that even in the best society there will still be war and crime. In those cases, in a free society, those willing and able to deal with highly dangerous criminals will do so.

The problem with restricting ownership of "military style" weapons is that it inevitably focuses on AR-15 based weapons, because of the image of military using automatic fire. However, the modular construction of these weapons, allowing multiple calibers by changing out barrels and magazines allow hunters to bag a wide variety of game, from varmints to big game with the same weapon, at far less cost than buying multiple different weapons. The same can't be said for AK-47/74 weapons.

I apologize for being late to this conversation, but three thoughts on this come to mind:
1) The intent of the 2nd amendment was to provide a proficient civilian militia not under the control of a central government, with the implied warning to an overbearing government that it can be removed by force if necessary. That implies that more than just a force of riflemen should be permitted. What weapons that implies I leave to everyone's imagination.
2) "Arms" under the 2nd amendment does not just apply to firearms. During the revolution, knives, hatchets, swords, cavalry lances, and spear called a "spontoon" were also considered legitimate tools for defense, but government at all levels have chosen to deny citizens the right to carry many of these weapons. It seems perverse that I can carry a powerful handgun while at the same time not be allowed to carry a knife with a blade longer than 3". Few 2nd amendment supporters have raised this issue; why I'm not sure.
3) Technology has created new "weapons" that government is unsure if citizens ownership should be denied. Cyber attacks can be devastating to government structure, but so far, ownership of certain kinds of software tools haven't been restricted, so long as malicious use isn't demonstrated. Restrictions on ownership of these "arms" would inevitably lead to an invasive police state.

Within the US, what private citizen needs to own a nuclear bomb? From the point of view of a nuclear arms manufacturer, what self interest would I have in selling a private individual a nuclear bomb? The protection of the public is best served by its own rational self interest.

what about the small pox vaccine, Madame Curie? Did these innovations come about with all this prudent regulation?

but is this actually happening or do we just fear it happening? and do laws keep such people from doing that that? I think if they want to do that, they're ignoring all sorts of precautions, including laws on the book

That's why I said 'observable, rational probable cause of harm about to be done'...

Pointing a cannon at my house and loading it certainly gives me probable cause to intercede in his actions, or for my government actors to do so. And if he moves to the trigger and the government isn't there yet (they probably won't be), I have cause to take my rifle and shoot him. But if all I observe is that he owns a cannon, I don't have cause to interfere.

How probable does the cause have to be? It's easy to say that you don't have the right to interfere with my actions until I cause you harm. But is this a suicide pact? Must you stand by until death befalls you because it hasn't happened yet?

Suppose I live next to you, get a cannon, point it at your house and load it. Do you have no cause for action until I pull the trigger?

Yes, no standing army.

Quote: “Never forget, even for an instant, that the one and only reason anybody has for taking your gun away is to make you weaker than he is , so he can do something to you that you wouldn’t let him do if you were equipped to prevent it. This goes for burglars, muggers, and rapists, and even more so for policemen, bureaucrats, and politicians.” —Aaron Zelman and L. Neil Smith, Hope, 2001

Paul Allen owns his own SU-29, a Russian Fighter jet on a par with our F-18.

But that's the point of Objectivism. You don't get to infringe on another's rights out of fear or other emotion, only on observable, rational probable cause of harm about to be done or in the process of happening.

That was the original intent in not having a standing army, but rather having militias.

Exactly.

The US is the only country on Earth or in history that has used nuclear weapons.

Well said john. +1

A gun in the hands of a properly trained youth is no danger to anyone either as is demonstrated in our known history up through the 80's or so. I began hunting on my own, unsupervised at the age of 11. But more than that, as the following quote illustrates:

“There exists a law, not written down anywhere, but inborn in our hearts, a law which comes to us not by training or custom or reading, a law which has come to us not from theory but from practice , not by instruction but by natural intuition. I refer to the law which lays down that, if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right.” —Marcus Tulles Cicero (106– 43 BC) (emphasis added)

If you allow that government can set *'proper objective conditions of their ownership and use' you've given up your moral, individual self defense rights. You've now let government set the conditions and limits of your self defense. An Objectivist individual has no obligation to protect another, and sense the only authority a proper government has is that given to them by the individuals in that jurisdiction, they can not have the obligation to protect you.

Any other approach is non-Objectivist and is more Pragmatist and Relativist.

Well, from an objectivist point of view, and more specifically, Ayn Rand..... I noted in Reardon's "court speech" he tells the authorities that they will have to arrest him at gun point for violating the obfiscatory laws. Note, she had the option of granting R an entire private army to fight off the government... But she chose not to. in the non- fiction world, we have to ask the realpolitik question of whether debating whether or not we should have the right to privately posses nuclear weapons. consider how that provides ammunition (pardon the literal reference) to critics of Objectivism how claim we are lunatic fringe. I mean is anyone here seriously considering acquiring a shoulder fired rocket to defend themselves against an authoritarian Waco style attack by the ATF? FBI ? Etc. As a gun owner, I think as soon as you start arguing that you need military style weapons to defend yourself against the government versus intruders, we don't do the cause of Objectivism, or Reason any favors. sorry for the decenting option, but I think Ayn would say something similar. But feel free to convince me I wrong... That's why I'm here.

I sometimes think that the biggest failure in mass humanity, is the idea from some in any group and in any age, that they can devise or design a 'society' for the total group that will move the group in a direction, supposedly one desired for the best of all. But any attempt to do that inevitably and of necessity neglects the good of the individual. I don't think it can do otherwise.

Even for Objectivist that have extensive understanding and knowledge of the underlying principles, and that have given considerable thought to the applications in life centered on the best for the individual, still have a desire for something other than the 'chaos' of the laissez faire model. And I think that desire, or fear of that 'chaos' particularly arises with the issue of 'non-initiation of force'. Not so much that one shouldn't do it, but the continual fear that one remains subject to the vagaries of nature, the nature of man, and one's abilities to defend his own rights--the what if's of life. The reality of human nature and the fragility of human life overrides the concept of the ideal.

There are (3) three quotes I like when I consider this issue:
“As every individual, therefore, endeavors as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.” —Adam Smith, Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776)

“There exists a law, not written down anywhere, but inborn in our hearts, a law which comes to us not by training or custom or reading, a law which has come to us not from theory but from practice , not by instruction but by natural intuition. I refer to the law which lays down that, if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right.” —Marcus Tulles Cicero (106– 43 BC)

“Of every One Hundred men, Ten shouldn’t even be there, Eighty are nothing but targets, Nine are real fighters . . . We are lucky to have them . . . They make the battle, Ah, but the One, One of them is a Warrior . . . and He will bring the others back.” —Heraclitus (circa 500 B.C.)

The concepts I take from these are in Smith's case, society gains most when it stays out of the way of the individual pursuing his own self interest. From Cicero, that we must expect as the natural condition, that we must accept and be prepared to defend our own lives in any way possible, and that such action is at all times moral. And from Heraclitus, that most are not suited for such conditions and requirements of life, but that one man that is able and willing may bring the rest with him into safety, even though that is not his personal goal over the ability to save himself.

Although I can agree with you that we (as in all of us) can't fully predict the circumstances we don't live in (though I worked with individuals in the 70's from Motorola and MSA that predicted the cell phone age, and others from Intel, GE, Square D, and Modicon that predicted the internet--though none of those could predict the exact infrastructure or the impacts on institutions and society), we can predict with a fair amount of certainty that approximately 5% of the male population will be psychopaths and will inflict their individual harms on society and other individuals, barring individuals preparing and acting to defend themselves from those predations. We can predict with equal certainty that at least 50% of the population will have IQ's below 100 and will drag the rest of us in directions we don't want to go, again barring genetic intervention or halting societal support of those that can't make it on their own. And we can predict with near absolute certainty that there will be war on some part of the planet.

Well said. I might add that a detailed reading of Federalist Paper 46 supports your conclusion. The ex-colonists had just won their freedom from a tyrannical government and saw the absolute necessity of having the general populace armed to the point that the federal government would not even consider becoming tyrannical...best laid plans of mice and men. Maybe we need a few more M4s in private hands.

So you got me by 3 years, I only did 21 but I was NOT a ground pounder. However, I still do claim the right to say what is war and what is not.