I, Pencil: An Insightful Reflection

In the complex world of manufacturing and assembly, the concepts of “making” and “building” are often misleading. Chief Justice John Roberts raised this intriguing question during the oral arguments of Garland v. VanDerStok, specifically regarding the nature of constructing firearms from ghost gun kits. These kits contain nearly finished components, such as a gun receiver that is 80% complete, along with necessary tools and instructions to finalize the gun. This situation mirrors the idea presented by Leonard Read in his classic essay, “I, Pencil,” where he illustrates how no single individual possesses the comprehensive knowledge required to create even a simple pencil. Each part’s creation involves many distinct processes and contributions from various people. Thus, while someone can assemble these parts into a functional item, asserting that they “made” the item oversimplifies and misrepresents the collaborative nature of production.

Roberts’ analogy of completing a gun receiver is further illuminated when likened to fixing a car. When someone takes the initiative to repair a car, they might not perform every task involved in the entire vehicle’s construction, but they still engage in a meaningful act of assembly or repair. In the case presented, if a person assembles a firearm from a kit, they may feel a sense of ownership over the completed product, despite their reliance on multiple manufacturers for the various components. This raises the question of whether individuals who modify or assemble products can genuinely consider themselves creators of those products or merely assemblers of parts created by others.

The crux of the discussion moves toward the idea of what it truly means to “build” or “make.” It highlights that even established firearm manufacturers do not solely create guns from scratch; they too operate within a larger supply chain, sourcing parts and components from various suppliers. If we view the term “build” through a technical lens, we may conclude that nobody truly builds a gun or even a pencil independently. Instead, they are engaged in the assembly process, utilizing materials and tools crafted by others, thus questioning the validity of claiming sole authorship over these objects.

Moreover, the distinction between modifying and fully creating an object can become convoluted. In the context of the ghost gun kits, the end user may contribute a significant proportion of the effort necessary to complete the firearm, as they are not merely clicking parts together; they are engaging in a process that requires skill and knowledge. This contribution could be viewed favorably when compared to large-scale manufacturers who may outsource most of their actual product construction, further complicating the definitions of what it means to build or create something.

At a semantic level, the conversation around terms like “build,” “make,” and “fix” reflects broader implications about our understanding of production and agency. While language typically suggests clear definitions, real-world practices reveal a blurring of these lines. Both the individual using a ghost gun kit and the manufacturer assembling components could be considered builders in their respective contexts, despite differing levels of investment and involvement. This perspective illustrates the importance of recognizing the interconnectedness inherent in the production process.

In synthesis, the discussions around Roberts’ inquiry and the ideas presented in “I, Pencil” illustrate a broader philosophical reflection on manufacturing, agency, and the complexities of collaboration. The production of goods—from simple pencils to intricate firearms—is a collective effort that spans countless individuals, processes, and materials. By acknowledging this intrinsic connectedness, we can better understand the roles that individuals and companies play in creating the tools and objects we rely on daily, ultimately reframing our assumptions about ownership and the nature of creation in a modern economy.