Yes. But we have to make a choice {appeal to ignorance}. Do we value the farmer's ability to buy fertiliser in secret more than the life of a bomb victim {false dilemma}. We don't have the option of pretending the decision does not have to be made {false dilemma}.
I'd choose to save the life. So do most people. You choose to let the bomb victim's die {begging the question}. That's your choice - you can always vote that way - but you can't impose that choice on others.
|
|
|
|
The regulation simply records who bought the fertiliser. No farmer loses anything. The only people disadvantaged are those who want to buy vast amounts of fertiliser for non-agricultural use.
Can you imagine how such recordation could be applied and enforced entirely in the private sector? Um, fertiliser is in the private sector. The role of the state if to make it compulsory. If fertilizer is in the private sector, let it remain in the private sector. Keep the state out of the private sector. Duh. *as the nonsense merry-go-round circles round again* |
|
|
|
Yes. But we have to make a choice. Do we value the farmer's ability to buy fertiliser in secret more than the life of a bomb victim. We don't have the option of pretending the decision does not have to be made.
I'd choose to save the life. So do most people. You choose to let the bomb victim's die. That's your choice - you can always vote that way - but you can't impose that choice on others.
Flip flop. Which side of this argument are you on anyway? How about you choose for you, and I'll choose for me? Get you and yours to create regulations for your fertilizer manufacturer, and we'll have regulations for us and ours. There is no such thing as choosing for others, that's an oxymoron. You don't choose for others, you can only force others to your way. Big difference. |
|
|
|
The regulation simply records who bought the fertiliser. No farmer loses anything. The only people disadvantaged are those who want to buy vast amounts of fertiliser for non-agricultural use.
And empirically we know it saves lives.
I can empirically show that lobotomies saves lives too. Government regulation is forced coercion. Law is force legalized. The farmer is subsequently diminished in his rights. If the farmer relents, he can be fined and imprisoned. That is a disadvantage. |
|
|
|
He's not being black-and-white. That would be "fertiliser for everyone" or "fertiliser for no-one". Hawker just proposes "fertiliser for whoever legitimately needs it". That's what you're proposing too, except Hawker likes to stop people *before* they suicide bomb a city, not afterwards.
Yes he was. He was saying we must have government regulation of fertilizer sales and concludes that that saves lives, conversely if he says we don't have government regulation he concludes people will die. It was one or the other. There were no other options on the table. This is an 'either-or' fallacy. Don't conclude that because something "works", that is the only way it can be done, or that it is the correct and just way to do it. To wit, if we give everybody a lobotomy, and nobody will be violent anymore, therefore we must all get lobotomies to prevent violence; and if nobody is violent, nobody will die. To beat a dead horse deader, getting lobotomies prevents violent death, and is thusly justifiable and is not just if we don't. |
|
|
|
How's about this: I previously wrote that libertarianism might be defined as: 1. Do no violence except to defend from imminent perceived threats to life, health or property.
2. Do not threaten or damage the life, health or property of another.
3. Honour all your contractual obligations.
I'd asked to be corrected it it was wrong but nobody did (I think), so I'll assume it's at least close. Now, please define " violence", " defend", "imminent", "perceived", " threat", "life", " health", " property", " damage", "honour", "contract", "obligations", starting with the ones in boldface. I mean, you might come from a different country from me, with different linguistic conventions; you might not be a native English speaker and so misunderstand some words; your background might give you different interpretations and so on. I need them to be defined, so if I decide to move to your liberty-land, I'll know what to do and what not to do, whenever I happen to find myself in circumstances somehow not comprehensively addressed by some prior contract. Now don't reply "here's what you must do: 'don't threaten anyone' etc", please actually *define* the terminology used; use examples if you think it's necessary. Yeah, I've done that one, take a look here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=18489.msg351447#msg351447 |
|
|
|
That's avoiding the question.
We have to choose; regulate fertiliser sales and save 1000s of lives or don't regulate fertiliser sales, have 1000s of people die and gain ... well we don't gain anything.
Unless you offer something that outweighs the loss of life from not regulating fertiliser, its an easy decision. I'll opt to save lives. If you want to be selfish about it, I could argue that my own life is one of those being protected but even if it wasn't, I'd opt not to have those poor people killed.
And I know somethings are worth dying for. That's why intelligent educated people carry out suicide bombings. My view is that we should minimize the number of innocents they take with them.
How about in response to your comment, I use a similie to make a point? Here are your options to solve the problem: you must pick black or white, it's an easy decision, and it's the only option. Don't look over there, that's the rainbow section... no you don't want any of that, it's too colorful. Don't draw conclusions from choices only you think exist (false dilemma - a type of logical fallacy). Forcing choices aren't choices in the end anyway. Yes I get it. People will die. People always die. I want fewer people to die too. I think we can keep our liberties and achieve both despite the worst of suicidal intentions. |
|
|
|
On one side of the debate, for regulation, we have an advocate who says "Its nice to avoid being killed. If you don't regulate fertiliser sales, thousands will die and you and your own family may be among them."
On the other side we have an advocate who says "If you regulate fertiliser sales, I lose my.... "
Lose what? I don't get what you want to offer that is worth dying for?
If you use force (via government in your case) to regulate my fertilizer, without cause (I'm not using it to commit a crime), your regulation makes a physical claim to the use of my property. To do so is to violate my property rights. This, in effect, is theft and trespass, or threats thereto. Last I checked, most people will defend their lives and property against invasion, theft and trespass. Sometimes to the death. Apparently some things are worth dying for. Did I say I like quotes? Here's another one: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." --Benjamin Franklin |
|
|
|
Laws should exist solely to protect rights.
Exactly. - The right to live and defend myself when in the presence of wackos who threaten my life- The right to not have that portion of the Earth I own from being spoiled - The right to breathe clean air not polluted by my neighbors- The right to not have to be overly burdened with varying and differing policies of businesses and fees for all manner of things, and because I don't like it, I'll start my own business organization and convince other to join me to "fix" it- The right to a free market consistent minimum standard of safety chosen by me provided by service providers I paid for- The right to not have to engineer your own security and protection and justice system so I'll go purchase one already devised by othersThat's sounds more like it. |
|
|
|
I'm sorry, but the rights you just made up are childish, arbitrary, and don't address anything important. That was the point. Now you know how I feel. +1 |
|
|
|
And that has fuck all to do with what I just said, re: everyone needing an unattainable level of knowledge and information to survive for more than an exceedingly short period in liberland.
Well, I liked the quote anyway. It may not have addressed your comment directly, but it sure made a good point, albeit a sarcastic one perhaps. I'm not sure we've really ever had a "liberland", and so for you to say we couldn't survive long if one were to exist, would be assuming things not in evidence. We may never get one, but I'll still try anyway. I might even be willing to meet some of you half way on some things. Unfortunately, there are too many people that like the thrill of power, and the urge to continually exercise it is an exciting but addicting drug with serious withdrawals symptoms, and so it would be unlikely to last very long. Like I've said in the past, you give an inch and they take a country mile. |
|
|
|
|
I just get a hankering for quotes sometimes, so bear with me. Notwithstanding, I still think they're apropos to the discussion at hand.
"Reason obeys itself; Ignorance submits to what is dictated to it" --Thomas Paine.
|
|
|
|
But you STILL haven't answered the real question clearly. Here it is *again*. Do you, or do you not, have the right to enter a negotiating room armed with a gun, where being so armed is not specifically prohibited? Just to remind you, you've already agreed that I have the right to immediately defend myself, with mortal violence if necessary, from any perceived threat to my life. Again, assume we live in your liberty-land.
More generically, do you think everybody in liberty-land should mutually agree on what is "freakishly absurd"?
More philosophically, do you think your ideology should address real-world problems, or just imaginary problems?
If there is no specific prohibition to possessing a weapon during mediation, you could arm yourself and would not have to relinquish that right. I'm not going to answer the "freakishly absurd" definition question, it's rhetorical. Any ideology should address all problems both real and perceived. |
|
|
|
What you don't realize is that it's not some "hey, I like learning new stuff" hobby. It would be a matter of life and death for you and your family. And it wouldn't just hinge on you having this unattainable level of knowledge. EVERYONE in the society would have to possess that same level of knowledge or the entire thing would collapse and many people would die.
I've got a good quote for that one AyeYo: "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. Classical conventionalism shows us everywhere, behind massive society, a hidden power, under the names of Law, or Legislator (or, by a mode of expression which refers to some person or persons of undisputed weight and authority, but not named), which moves, animates, enriches, and regenerates mankind..." "...Happily, according to these writers, there are some men, termed governors and legislators, upon whom Heaven has bestowed opposite tendencies, not for their own sake only, but for the sake of the rest of the world. Whilst mankind tends to evil, they incline to good; whilst mankind is advancing towards darkness, they are aspiring to enlightenment; whilst mankind is drawn towards vice, they are attracted by virtue. And, this granted, they demand the assistance of force, by means of which they are to substitute their own tendencies for those of the human race." --Frederic Bastiat. Sounds awfully familiar, and this made mention only 150 years ago. I don't think much has changed since. You "high-and-mighties" have had your chance, time to back down and give liberty back to their rightful owners. |
|
|
|
I missed the question in here. I do think everyone has an automatic right to self defense, but I do not think that everyone has an automatic right to gun ownership. Like I said earlier, I'd use a baseball bat.
You STILL didn't, and presumably can't, defend your ideology from the accusation of being fundamentally flawed. Please stop wasting people's time with illogical incoherent political rubbish please; read a few books and fix your ideas.
I have a right to self defense but I don't have a right to the method of self defense? A oxymoron if I've ever seen one. The method is what matters the most. The only people you could remotely exclude from gun ownership might be those individuals who have used guns to commit crimes (unprovoked aggression, to be crystal clear). Excluding anybody, other than criminals, and you'd be just playing the nanny/mother-may-I/overlord statist game again. |
|
|
|
Oh come on; that's a poor attempt to divert the conversation from principle to implementation.
Let me ask the question again as it goes the core of your idea.
We have the capacity to organise. We have to choose between regulation of fertiliser sales which will save lives and not regulating fertiliser sales which will result in a many deaths. So we debate whether or not to do it.
On one side of the debate, for regulation, we have an advocate who says "Its nice to avoid being killed. If you don't regulate fertiliser sales, thousands will die and you and your own family may be among them."
On the other side we have an advocate who says "If you regulate fertiliser sales, I lose my.... "
Lose what? I don't get what you want to offer that is worth dying for?
You asked about fertilizer for heck sake! I can't be ambiguous about a specific thing. You'd accuse me of being obtuse (you probably mean abstruse) again. You asked, I answered. Regulation limits utility, which limits innovation, which limits change, it increases costs due to bureaucratic overhead, and of course, as per usual, it limits my rights. |
|
|
|
The question remains; we have the ability to act in a way that will save lives. You have the ability to try to stop us. But do you have some moral basis for stopping us? In the Irish case, what are you offering to balance the thousands of lives that regulating fertiliser sales saves?
I would proffer the fertilizer manufacturer a fee to secure information about any and all transactions over a specified size, or about individuals of a suspicious nature (i.e. ones who may not use it for gardening purposes). If the fertilizer manufacturer requires public disclosure of all sales of fertilizer, everybody will know who owns what, and who to keep an eye out for. In the interest of the fertilizer manufacturer, he could also decide to deny certain sales, unless further information and risk exposure be obtained or determined. The fee could be paid by an organization of self-interested persons seeking safety, or the fertilizer manufacturer could just freely disclose it because doing so might garner him respect within the community (this may lead to more profits) hence the reason. If he relents, boycott him, a.k.a., let the buyers speak with their feet. That would be one way. Of course, as usual, you'll probably smack this one down too... I'm waiting for it, in 3...2...1... |
|
|
|
As humans we are able to organise they type of society we want to live in. We have the capacity to intervene to regulate dangerous materials and quarantined dangerous people. In the case of fertiliser, as we discussed earlier, the case of a person with smallpox, we know that lives will be saved if we do intervene. Since we have the capacity to save these lives, failing to intervene is facilitating extra unnecessary killings.
Do you have a moral basis for stopping us?
If I don't threaten you or aggress you, I'm within my rights to stop you from invading me. On that moral basis, yes. Just because you have the capacity to intervene doesn't always mean you should (numerical superiority doesn't count either). I'll use your words, "on what moral basis..." do you have a right to regulate property that's not yours? In fact, why don't you do everybody the favor of always prefixing, "on what moral basis", in front of all of your questions from now on. That way we can always refer to the principles upon which we act before we enact. Tedious I know, but extremely useful. |
|
|
|
It's so funny. They both keep trotting out the NAP, as if they've been indoctrinated by some cultist book they both read. And they keep making this horrific assumption that everyone just follows the NAP - but how exactly does that work unless some central authority enforces the NAP?
What's so particularly special about having a central authority for enforcement? Could I not just hire a private security firm to protect me? If you can't understand the NAP, then we have worse things to worry about (I'm not referring to the detonate-by-water-droplet-nuke problem either) Indoctrinated? Cultist? Yeah those words change everything now... What was I thinking? Poor crazy brainwashed illogical me... Horrific indeed! Sheesh. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
