These conversations have ceased to be interesting. Like I said earlier, it's like arguing for whether the Easter Bunny should be required to carry a business license around with him.
I truly yearn for intelligent discussion with intelligent people about real issues that could stand to be solved. Not this crap about hypothetical societies advocated by fringe nutcases.
Ever considered the fact that your society might be considered by some to be fringe nutcase behavior? I'm all for solving problems, just not necessarily by following the status quo method, neither am I suggesting the whole "system" is broken. Many people believe that if you sprinkle a little truth in with the lies, that it's still all truth, or we have to take the bad with the good and just go along to get along. Can we not agree that it's okay to root out all injustice wherever and whenever it rears it ugly head? There are lots of big problems with society and government. I'll be happy to discuss solutions to any of those problems with you, when you decide you wish to do that. |
|
|
|
No-one said "willy nilly". I said "best." Best means the way that has lowest probability of failure. Surely you can agree that society is entitled to regulate in whatever way makes it best nuclear weapons are prevented from being used?
Yes you did. My mistake. May the "best" man win. An is-ought conundrum for a very tricky situation no doubt. so you are agreed that society is entitled to regulate in whatever way makes it best nuclear weapons are prevented from being used where best means the way that has lowest probability of failure? These conversations have ceased to be interesting. Like I said earlier, it's like arguing for whether the Easter Bunny should be required to carry a business license around with him. I truly yearn for intelligent discussion with intelligent people about real issues that could stand to be solved. Not this crap about hypothetical societies advocated by fringe nutcases. |
|
|
|
Give bitcoin2cash a prize! He has now entered into the dawn of understanding. He's now fully comprehending that there are many complex issues out there, and each bears addressing with knowledge applicable to the nature of the issue, and that the solution shouldn't be burdened with the one size fits all idealism that he has been preaching since he read a book on libertarianism and got all starry eyed with it. Even if the world ends up as a nuclear wasteland, I would choose that over violating a single person's rights. I stopped reading right there. Idiot. |
|
|
|
|
I said that each nation on this planet does what it wants, mostly, and it's hard to get a supervising authority that regulates (the UN?) effectively, since each nation does what it wants, except when coerced or ganged up on by others. If you think of each nation as an individual or a business which owns property, then you have the exact model of libertarianism. The population within any given nation generally operates under house rules (i.e. a household) - one nation (or nations) generally can't tell another nation how to run their own household or tell them what to do on their land.
The world is kind of fucked up. Look no further than that to understand libertarianism.
As for your links, it appears that laws guided by regulation within the given nation aided in catching the uranium smugglers. Is something wrong with that?
|
|
|
|
Fact: The reason it takes effort to make a nuke right now is that the materials are proscribed under the non-proliferation treaty. The design of the original abombs is widely available.
Fact: In the 1990s the Pakistani nuclear chief scientist sold bomb making materials to the highest bidder.
Question: If it can be demonstrated that giving the right to nukes to everyone will mean that they get used, are you willing to accept regulation of them?
Really, the non-proliferation treaty makes producing materials difficult does it? Right... Go read a wikipedia article on how much energy it takes to purify Uranium coke (gas centrifuges being the prime reason). It ain't easy. Your treaty just makes it that much more difficult because people fear for their lives while attempting it. That would be true of any endeavor government wants to intervene in. Look at the war on drugs as a obvious example. Question: If it can be demonstrated that giving the right to nukes to everyone will mean that they get used, are you willing to accept regulation of them? Yes . If regulation says no one can have them. If it says dangerous/peaceful can/can't have them then i'l treat it as if it doesn't exist. Consider why some nations have them and others don't. Consider why the world can't seem to get this right. It's because the world doesn't run the world. The world is actually like the libertarians want a community to be. The world, in its current state is an example of how messed up a libertarian community is. Self regulation (the world model) doesn't work. But regulation within a nation does work. The key is to choose the proper country to live in. hmm seems it didn't quite work here. https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?4436-Moldova-seizes-%EF%BF%BD7-million-worth-of-enriched-uraniumhttp://www.theonion.com/video/report-finds-troubling-rise-in-teen-uranium-enrich,19175/Huh? Do you understand what I said? |
|
|
|
So you admit that having intellectual property and public roads are separate issues from not living in a post-apocalyptic wasteland? Maybe we should focus on those things then instead of "what if you could buy nukes like you can guns"?
Give bitcoin2cash a prize! He has now entered into the dawn of understanding. He's now fully comprehending that there are many complex issues out there, and each bears addressing with knowledge applicable to the nature of the issue, and that the solution shouldn't be burdened with the one size fits all idealism that he has been preaching since he read a book on libertarianism and got all starry eyed with it. |
|
|
|
Weirdo. Please cite all times that you experienced unenjoyable moments where a gun was pointed at you so that you could benefit from said services.
It was a metaphorical "point of a gun". Metaphor withdrawn. Statement stands. The statement does not stand, since "point of a gun" was the statement. |
|
|
|
Three things wrong with this. Paper has other uses. A burning house takes some time, and there is a chance of rescue. A burned house is not an obliterated city.
Try again.
The materials in a nuclear bomb can be used for nuclear power. The metals the bomb is composed of can be used to build a bridge. They also have other uses. Of course, I could take the metals and make a fork to poke your eye out too. It goes to intent. When did a bridge require metals that you can't possess? When was it determined that it was likely that there would be much benefit to any person or society at large to allow a single individual to effectively try and construct power plants which are safe? |
|
|
|
Taxation is one way to provide for services, saying it is correct is an is-ought fallacy. If you believe that unprovoked aggressive force is illegitimate, then taxation is theft. I don't enjoy the "protection" society provides me, because it is forced upon me at the point of a gun. I very much find that to be very much unenjoyable. By using force, you provide few other choices. How unfortunate.
Weirdo. Please cite all times that you experienced unenjoyable moments where a gun was pointed at you so that you could benefit from said services. |
|
|
|
Don't say taking you at your word is idiotic. If you have your way, millions will die and their property will be uninhabitable for generations. That's what nukes are for. They have no other use.
Now lets make things absolutely clear:
Question: If it can be demonstrated that giving the right to nukes to everyone will mean serious risk of human extinction, are you willing to accept regulation of them?
Question: If a piece of paper can be lit by a match and burn a house down with all the occupants in it every time, should we regulate paper use? This would be a better question for you to ask: If a person can possess a nuke, and by pressing a button, obliterate a whole town and cause radioactive damage further out, should we regulate ownership of nukes by persons? |
|
|
|
Don't say taking you at your word is idiotic. If you have your way, millions will die and their property will be uninhabitable for generations. That's what nukes are for. They have no other use.
Now lets make things absolutely clear:
Question: If it can be demonstrated that giving the right to nukes to everyone will mean serious risk of human extinction, are you willing to accept regulation of them?
Question: If a piece of paper can be lit by a match and burn a house down with all the occupants in it every time, should we regulate paper use? Three things wrong with this. Paper has other uses. A burning house takes some time, and there is a chance of rescue. A burned house is not an obliterated city. Try again. |
|
|
|
Actually, if his position on nukes is anything to go by, he doesn't care about preservation of OUR species.
Fred, is that your position? You are happy for our species to be made extinct in preservation of your pretty treatise on "the law?"
Your being idiotic. I wrote the law for the very purpose of "preserving" our liberties and thus the human species. I trust those who I entrust my security. I don't trust those who force me to trust them. I never will. Forcing me to do something sans provocation will never win you "brownie points" with me. In the absence of specific knowledge, it's not that hard to trick yourself into thinking that your ideas are well thought out. I have provided quite a bit of information in this thread, and others. I believe I have provided quite a fair bit of explanation on how things work, statistics, etc. More than you have. You're interested in preserving the human species? I actually believe you. I just don't think you know enough to be proposing ideas on the subject. |
|
|
|
So you accept the fact that society will in general view you as a fringe nutcase, and won't give any credence to your views?
So I have to comply with the status quo? No, you don't. You're welcome to your views. I'm only indicating to you that such silly and absurd views will get you nowhere. But I think an individual should take a stand, instead of going with the flow. I agree with your right to believe in what you think is sensible. But there are two things to consider: 1) Do you know enough that your views are sensible and worthwhile? 2) Do you know that your views will reflect on your character as a whole and be used against you? |
|
|
|
Fact: The reason it takes effort to make a nuke right now is that the materials are proscribed under the non-proliferation treaty. The design of the original abombs is widely available.
Fact: In the 1990s the Pakistani nuclear chief scientist sold bomb making materials to the highest bidder.
Question: If it can be demonstrated that giving the right to nukes to everyone will mean that they get used, are you willing to accept regulation of them?
Really, the non-proliferation treaty makes producing materials difficult does it? Right... Go read a wikipedia article on how much energy it takes to purify Uranium coke (gas centrifuges being the prime reason). It ain't easy. Your treaty just makes it that much more difficult because people fear for their lives while attempting it. That would be true of any endeavor government wants to intervene in. Look at the war on drugs as a obvious example. Question: If it can be demonstrated that giving the right to nukes to everyone will mean that they get used, are you willing to accept regulation of them? Yes . If regulation says no one can have them. If it says dangerous/peaceful can/can't have them then i'l treat it as if it doesn't exist. Consider why some nations have them and others don't. Consider why the world can't seem to get this right. It's because the world doesn't run the world. The world is actually like the libertarians want a community to be. The world, in its current state is an example of how messed up a libertarian community is. Self regulation (the world model) doesn't work. But regulation within a nation does work. The key is to choose the proper country to live in. |
|
|
|
Question: If it can be demonstrated that giving the right to nukes to everyone will mean that they get used, are you willing to accept regulation of them?
Nope. So you accept the fact that society will in general view you as a fringe nutcase, and won't give any credence to your views? |
|
|
|
Your treaty just makes it that much more difficult because people fear for their lives while attempting it.
That's kind of the point, eh? |
|
|
|
I seem to have a lot of problems with people putting words in my mouth. Except for this response, I've never mentioned God in our discourses. Please refrain from inferring anything other than what I've actually said, if you can. I'm sure you've got a 'backspace' key. Use it a little more often. I won't put words in your mouth if you'd choose to state clearly your beliefs and position, and the reasoning behind those positions. Why do you take the position you do? Is it because of an antiquated and unenlightened view? Is it because you lack empathy? Is it because you value the freedom of being able to produce a product or buy a product far more than most everything else. Furthermore, don't be one of those ignoramuses that believe the preservation of a species is strictly for ethical reasons. |
|
|
|
No answer?
Asked and answered. But you almost certainly know less than you should. I know less than I should, but it's obviously more than you. Read this recent post of mine: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=25626.msg530155#msg530155As for your answer, you clearly do believe that God put the animals here for our pleasure and use. Sad. |
|
|
|
With respect, you are the one who says that Jared Loughner should have had access to nuclear weapons before his attack on Tuscon. He would have been in his right, yes. However, to have access to a nuke, you wouldn't just be able to walk into Wal-Mart and buy one. Are you saying that we shouldn't let anyone have guns because a few people like this guy will use them to murder? So you believe Jared Loughner would have been in his right to have had a nuclear weapon in the trunk of his car instead of a firearm? Its really your position that right of a mentally ill teenager should be able to buy nuclear weapon is more important that the right to life of the 1,020,200 who live in Tuscon. Correct me if I am wrong here. About 30,000 Americans commit suicide every year. Presumably you'd like every one of them to have access to a weapon that will kill 100,000 people at a time. Lets assume that 1% ( very low but we can be conservative here ) use their personal nuke to end it all. Thats 300 nuclear explosions a year. Not all will be in urban areas so lets assume that only 10,000 people are killed in the average explosion. Of course, vast swathes of land will be uninhabitable, millions more will be handicapped for life by radiation sickness and there will be lots of deformed children as a result of radiation. Thats the consequence of allowing people who are suicidal have nukes; 3 million Americans killed and the country rendered unfit for life. Of course you would also allow criminals access to them as well. And a certain number would be detonated in drunken marital disputes. It seems a very uninspiring vision of how you want your country to live. Please correct me if I have misunderstood you. You have misunderstood him. He says that only those who won't actually hit the detonation button have the right. He says that the community at large will not allow those who would actually push the detonation button to have them. He never seems to get that in his world where there would be no laws, that it's kind of contradictory that the community unites to enforce some set of agreed upon laws. Nor does he seem to realize that if the community does enforce some agreed upon set of laws, that those laws might no be the laws he keeps stressing would be the laws (i.e. NAP). Nor does he seem to realize that just because NAP might be the agreed upon set of laws, NAP might not be the agreed upon set of laws on the other side of the river. The whole thing is just silly. It's about as pointless as debating whether the Easter Bunny should have a business license or not. Better to spend our time discussing real issues that plague the world today, and how to fix them. |
|
|
|
The ethics card stops at humans.
Are you one of those Creationists who says God put the animals on this earth for our pleasure and use? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
