All the ones I'm not currently spending my money on. Nyah!

You already know the answer to this one, but I'll oblige the inaneness of it anyway. If you own the property and don't permit guests to be armed, the guest either agrees, disarms and enters, or doesn't and is denied entry. That isn't giving up ones rights, it's making a decision about the merits of relinquishing a weapon in exchange for entry. Nothing more, nothing less. It is a free choice, not a forced and involuntary one. Weapons regulation is different. It discriminates based on the characteristics and composition of the weapon alone and ignores the title and property rights of the owner. Completely different animals.


I'm beginning to wonder if I'm the only one that has an imagination around here. Sorry for the rant, but why is it so difficult to find another way but the forceful one? I know that justice is not a primary concern of yours, but I'd like to think there are merits to incorporating justice that are just worth it despite some of the kinks. Here's the thing about Nestle. You just made a point that they aren't changing there ways now; this is with your government in place.

There will always be the underbelly of crime in whatever society you live, but that doesn't mean that the laws or the ideology are necessarily to blame. I could write laws all the day long, and if nobody cares to follow them, nothing I believe in will matter. No ideology at that point would make a difference. Humans have to act humanely first. Try teaching spiders to not cannibalize their own kind. It's impossible. Most governments are just another form of rights cannibalism.

Point taken. However, that is great for a road you own, as in a privately managed and maintained road. Make all the rules you want. Invite or exclude anybody you want. However, don't dictate to me what I will do on my road. That's all I'm trying to say. It's a great list of things to do on your private land. Get it?


You can do anything you like, as long as the materials you use, stay on your land. If they don't, you've either trespassed, endangered others, or both. The law can then intervene. If you don't know you're being damaged, by whom, or how, you can't lawfully intervene on a hunch. I suggest you continually monitor your water supply. If/When the water supply has increases in toxic levels of certain compounds, and you can demonstrate that those chemicals originated with your local manufacturer, sue to enjoin, or press other criminal charges. Rinse and repeat as necessary. But I doubt even that's necessary, as one flub on their part would probably land them in the clink (attempted murder charges from poisoning). At this point you might offer a version of monitoring (volunteer regulating) and they can sidestep the murder rap. See where I'm going with this? Other manufacturers might catch on, others will risk it..

Even if you can't prove damage or direct harm, you can boycott just in case. All manufacturers, at least those that operate for profit, need customers to sustain themselves. You'd be amazed what a concerted effort of a few picketers can do for a cause. All things considered, even I have an extremely low tolerance and patience for polluters. Notwithstanding that however, I don't think government regulation is the way to go. It unfairly punishes those already in compliance, or who have not yet caused harm.


And a mad mad mad mad world it is. Mother-may-I? And I thought by leaving, I wouldn't have to be under the thumb of my parents. I'd rather live at home. Big brother is much worse.

You use the word voluntary in a rather contradictory way. If an act is voluntary for you but not voluntary for another, then I say it has failed that definition requirement. You can't volunteer another, it just doesn't make sense. But then not much in the way of what government does, constitutes volunteerism anyway.

Libertarianism only responds to violence, it doesn't institute it, initiate it, incite it, or instigate it. For everything else, it keeps to itself, or it proffers an environment of free exchange. Sounds ideal to me.

You're not a libertarian so why are you quoting yourself? That isn't exactly proof of what we believe. Why don't you quote somebody who claims to be a libertarian and attack their ideology? You should do your homework first, of course (ya know, like read a few books on Libertarianism). Lashing out makes for an unconvincing argument. I like to poke holes in Libertarianism, and I have a few thoughts, but in this forum most of my time is spent putting out the occasional garbage-can fire.


Being outnumbered by the enemy doesn't make the enemy any more right. I could join a gang and rob Grandma of the $500 under her mattress, but just because there's one of her and ten of us doesn't make it right. Voting by majority can get you any law, and you know it. I bet if you start letting children vote (just promise them candy), it might increase your numbers and then you'd feel even better about yourself. A majority requires little deliberation and thought, it tends to be anonymous, and it prevents blowback for the voter, for that very reason. I'm beginning to wonder if voting isn't some sort of ploy for the thief because stealing is getting harder and harder to do these days; besides stealing on a person to person basis is getting dangerous. With an army to back you, it makes your job so much the easier.

Theft by vote. I could probably write a book about that.

Why should I consider your transportation issues if the road development and maintenance is for your roads, same for rail, airplane and helicopter and other modes of transportation? You being a business man, you should figure that out. I suppose if you hired me to help you manage your roads, railroads, airplane production and other whatnot, we might have something. I will not assist you as long as you use eminent domain, taxpayer subsidies, and other types of government interference, as I'm diametrically opposed to plunder, mollycoddling and forceful manipulation.

Same goes for your environmental issues. All of them are important, but none of them should have any lawful effect on property you don't own, unless and only unless the property use exceeds the boundaries within which it is contained. Prove that one, and you might just have another disciple. I will never put other lifeforms above that of humans and their basic human rights. Your only other option is to educate them and show them that by being better stewards of their lands they can preserve the natural beauty (and species) of the land, otherwise you should back down.

No libertarian would ever so much as breathe that. You're just trying to start a flame war and it's already heated in here as is.

Those subject matters should be addressed. That doesn't necessarily give anybody the right to make a law to regulate it. That just complicates the issue, but then maybe that's what you're going for -more interesting. I prefer less interesting to more interesting in that case. If you're advocating laws to manipulate and coerce the property owners of others, then you better have a very good reason for doing so.

Here we go. I'm going to get whacked upside the head. I can just feel it coming.

Yeah, that's probably true. It kind of depends on the age of the person too. The younger they are the less they question it (my personal experience). They usually gripe when their rights and liberties are on the chopping block, then they take it personally. There sure has been a lot of griping lately. Sorry about projecting my personal experience as a generality. It used to be a lot more apathy, but in the last few years it seems to have become more acute. My personal experience and opinion, of course.

Isn't that the point of owning any weapon? It obviously doesn't prevent the nuke from being used but makes for a reasonable deterrent. That's the main justification anyway.

I see states and regulations arising to take advantage of irrational humans, and rational humans get railroaded in the process. A rather sad state of affairs. Just look to Hitler as a good example. Look into the faces of Germans to see their elation when their Furor came. They almost saw him as their savior. They were just looking to find a way out of their poverty and oppression. Little did they know.

I'm not saying all governments are as destructive as the Nazis but they certainly have some similarities. The following is a quote parroting what others have said in the past (you aren't the first):

"Moreover, if they have consented to recognize in the heart of man a capability of action, and in his intellect a faculty of discernment, they have looked upon this gift of God as a fatal one, and thought that mankind, under these two impulses, tended fatally towards ruin. They have taken it for granted that if abandoned to their own  inclinations, men would only occupy themselves with religion to arrive at atheism, with instruction to come to ignorance, and with labor and exchange to be extinguished in misery...It is only needful to open, almost at random, a book on philosophy, politics, or history, to see how strongly this idea—the child of classical studies and the mother of socialism—is rooted in our country; that mankind is merely inert matter, receiving life, organization, morality, and wealth from power; or, rather, and still worse—that mankind itself tends towards degradation, and is only arrested in its tendency by the mysterious hand of the legislator." -- Frederic Bastiat, 1850.

That's pretty dang close. I think I could one-up you though. How about, "If it saves lives, and the majority says it's okay, the initiation of violence is morally justified"

I'm not pointing a finger at anybody here, but I could attempt to argue the merits of "keeping your hands to yourself" in front of an audience of gang members and I probably wouldn't get very far either.

The general tenor I get from the average person on the street is that whatever the law is, it must be true, because it's a law. Very rarely do you see anybody really boiling down the basic purpose of law to determine whether or not the law is just in the first place. What you see is, if the majority says it is, then it must be. There's nothing particularly compelling about that statement (other than ignorant apathy).

If anything, rule by majority is as simple (for purposes of creating a law) as the NAP, but in a different way, as a vote is all you need. However, if you start with the assumption that you can't aggress another or his property, you will reach a crossroad eventually where you must decide if you're going to compromise that principle. At that point, you decide if you're going to stick with it and try to keep to your principles and take a less trodden route, or compromise them and construct law for any reason and due to any circumstance.

b2c makes an interesting point. If you were hungry, and you were at risk of dying, you (and many others) would likely steal to survive. That doesn't excuse the theft, and the law must exact its just desserts, but at least you'd be alive to answer for it. I'm not going to say you have lawfully justified anything by your actions, neither am I suggesting a law should be made to support it, merely stating that it is what it is. Take your lumps and move on.

I could just as easily argue that it is my duty to extract my child from a neighboring home he has wandered into, even break into it if necessary in the interests of protecting my child, but damage has been done. The neighbors property has been trespassed, perhaps even vandalized, but my child is now safe. However, that doesn't excuse me from restitution to the owner. I have no problem answering to him for what I've done.

Don't think for a second that by the above admission, I'm giving any weight to the argument that we can side-step justice (do no harm, NAP), and merely do as we please, whether individually or collectively. Au contraire, preservation of an individual's rights is paramount, and nothing should diminish them.

If you look at the progression of regulation, you'll notice where it starts and where it eventually ends.

I agree that we should look at the consequences, or the outcomes of all undesirable situations. That's natural to do. Nobody wants to live in fear of their lives constantly, or feel that they have to "walk on egg shells" because the neighbor is well armed and seems a bit "off".

Notwithstanding that, what typically happens when a negative event happens, is we get angry and upset at the criminal, and we want justice. That's reasonable. Every political ideology (PI) deals with that to some extent in a reasoned fashion, at least when cooler heads prevail. But we don't stop there, we look to see if there is a way to avert disaster of a similar type ever again. It's at this point where almost all PIs diverge. Some will say it is a freak accident due to mental incapacity, others will blame the victim for inciting a reaction, or that the criminal had a negative upbringing and so on and so forth.

Some even take it a step further. They look to the unique circumstances and context of the crime. They say, "Well look what weapon he used. If he hadn't had that weapon, then the victim would have had a better chance, or avoided being victimized at all". Now we're starting to tread muddy waters. We start debating whether or not the outcome would have been the same, had the weapon been different somehow. That type of argumentation I think serves little purpose, because you can't roll the clock back.

It ultimately leads to deciding (rather arbitrarily now) that the personal liberties of other individuals (not the criminal in this instance) no longer have precedence because "society" has decided for them. Society is now the deliberating body who decides for others how they may or may not defend themselves, or what type of property they may possess. Their personal liberties have, in some subtle way, been delegated to others for this determination. We really can't say that those designated persons are any more qualified to possess and use weapons than anybody else, but we've given them these titles, distinctions, and powers anyway.

All men are fallible, some more than others I suppose, but the fact that we can't decide for ourselves on how we want to direct our actions and the more we rely on our leaders, seemingly the more complacent we become. What appears to happen is that weapons and defense accumulate to the few, and leave the many to rely, almost solely on law enforcement. Some don't even try to arm themselves because the laws make it difficult to do so, or impossible in some instances. Criminals know this. They prey on that fact. There are only so many "protectors" to go around. This feedback loop between criminal and government goes on for awhile until most objects deemed "dangerous" (almost anything can be used as a weapon eventually) become regulated and only our law enforcement is empowered to do anything about it. Our saviors to the rescue (sarcasm).

Ultimately and finally, when the masses are disarmed, it's very easy to herd them in the direction you want them, and then almost anything goes at this point. The whims of the masses push back and forth, grinding and haltingly into a unrecognizable tangled morass. Lawyers and politicians love this -it keeps them in business- and at the same time, amazingly gives them the aura of the "fix-it guy" who can solve your problems, albeit for a very short lived period of time; but it keeps them entertained and placated I suppose.

But even the "common man" isn't that ignorant and eventually catches on. Unfortunately, at this point "might makes right" and the anointed ones and the ivory towers in which they reside, are the only deciding factions left. And they are well bunkered in. I can see the writing on the wall too. If you can regulate nukes, then why not semtex, or fertilizer, or handguns, or knife length, or... or how about a lemonade stand? Yeah, I know you say it would never happen. Calling me a liar? Been there, seen that.

It has happened in the past, it will happen again. The past is prologue.

Under what circumstances would one regulate any weapon, in your opinion? More specifically, why would anyone regulate anything, unless there was imminent threat of violence or unless violence had already been committed?

What exactly constitutes a weapon anyway?

Do we need specific laws to account for weapon use for all persons in all places, or can they be handled on a case-by-case basis?

Every conflict scenario is unique, with a unique set of circumstances, intentions, and evidence. How could any law regulating weapons be realistically applicable and equitable in all situations and not violate personal liberties?

EDIT: Actually if you think about it, nobody regulates weapons, they regulate people. I continually read comments in this thread that we should regulate fertilizer sales, or nuclear ordinances, smallpox, toxic materials, and whatnot, when what we're really doing is regulating individual liberties and actions.

I'm pretty sure in "Liberland", having a discussion about personal liberties is not going to result in somebody getting killed. That's not proportional retribution or an appropriate self-defense mechanism, at least if you believe in libertarianism, that is.

I also don't think it's likely that a mentally unstable mother would be able to acquire a nuke, much less know how to operate one, and even less certain is if she could even deliver it. They are pretty heavy, unless your talking about the more "suitcase-sized" ones. And then there is the case that she probably won't have the wherewithal to pay for one, and on top of all that, it's entirely likely that the seller would vet her in consideration of her mental capacity. Not saying it couldn't happen, just that it's not likely.

NO law should consider cost/benefit analysis. That's for the individual to decide. And besides, if you use cost/benefit analysis for decisions regarding law, you automatically skew the free market, and then your cost/benefit analysis becomes less relevant the more you intervene. In addition to that, the more universal the law, the more manipulative it becomes.

It's a one way trip to complete regulation of all things, and then ultimately and finally, tyranny. It's what some call the new NEO-'socialist/communist/marxist' movement. The previous attempt was to be outright blatant about it. That is, the original method was to just claim all lands and resources as state owned, and the individual was to be directed in all things from cradle to grave. The new way is to regulate your way there. It basically achieves the same end-game.

I lost my train of thought, but no matter. I have a quote that will come to my rescue.

"Law is Justice.

And let it not be said, as it continually is, that the law, in this sense, would be atheistic, individual, and heartless, and that it would mold mankind in its own image. This is an absurd conclusion, quite worthy of the governmental infatuation which sees mankind in the law. What then? Does it follow that if we are free, we shall cease to act?

Does it follow that if we do not receive an impulse from the law, we shall receive no impulse at all? Does it follow that if the law confines itself to securing to us the free exercise of our faculties, our faculties will be paralyzed? Does it follow, that if the law does not impose upon us forms of religion, modes of association, methods of education, rules for labor, directions for exchange, and plans for charity, we shall plunge headlong into atheism, isolation, ignorance, misery, and greed?"

-Frederic Bastiat

You have the power to decide to do what you're going to do with your person and your property (and with those you've contracted with). You should not decide for others. That is the very definition of aggression. Go right ahead and start a private society and incorporate your version of rules you want to dictate.

Of course, you'd have to own all of the land and resources in that society (or obtain consent for them) to dictate what types of use may be allowed. However, if you don't have the ownership rights to the land and resources, then you can't regulate. Besides, I don't know of many serfs that would be interested in being subjects of yours, but hey, go ahead and try it and see how it goes.

You ought to use the power only upon those things which you rightfully have claim to.
You ought not to use power to subjugate others to your will, sans aggression.

See the diff?

You continually draw conclusions from very narrowly defined axioms, assuming them, for the most part, to be the only option available, and if I disagree, I must be wrong and you are right. I disagree. It can be proven that there is more than "to regulate" or "not to regulate".

I get the fact that wielding force is convenient for you. However, nobody likes to be on the receiving end of your "big stick". You say it saves lives. It does to some extent, but then so do lobotomies. I hear you become very docile after one of those. I suggest doing neither.

Both intent and outcome matter. The results are matter of fact. Whether that outcome (the resultant) is right or wrong is what deontology addresses. They are 'is-ought' concerns.