The state you live in? The two aren't the same. Anyone who thinks the analogy works suffers in a bad way, and I pity them. And it's a fact, I am starting to pity some of the individuals here based on their reasoning abilities, beliefs, and desperate statements they make to defend the costume they've donned while playing political rebel.
I'm well aware of that. You're even dumber than I thought if, after reading all of my posts, you'd think I thought he meant a state of the USA. Is that the best commentary you could come up with?
Here, I highlighted it for you. You referred to a place, not a sovereign political entity. Dumb, whose dumb? Admit you were wrong and get on with it. |
|
|
|
If an individual owns a nuclear weapon, does that constitute a direct threat?
If a state owns a nuclear weapon, does that constitute a direct threat?
The state you live in? The two aren't the same. Anyone who thinks the analogy works suffers in a bad way, and I pity them. And it's a fact, I am starting to pity some of the individuals here based on their reasoning abilities, beliefs, and desperate statements they make to defend the costume they've donned while playing political rebel. Please enlighten us oh wise one. Answer the question. And if you think he's referring to a State within the United States of America, you're just being coy. The STATE as in statist STATE a.k.a. your GOVERNMENT. |
|
|
|
Uhhh, it's not at all clear to me. How personally is your life in shambles, or unpleasant, and so on because of the present qualities of government or, additionally, due to certain missing things in your life?
There are too many things, and I'm not interested in listing any of them. I wouldn't even know where to start. Understand me, I'm not an anarchist per se, but my guess would be 90% of government law is pure unadulterated theft and violence. And besides, just because some of it doesn't directly affect me now, should I want to engage in some future activity that I'm not at the moment, is sufficient enough to give me pause. You know me well enough. I've spent plenty of time in this forum stating my beliefs and philosophies. Go read up, don't make me regurgitate it. |
|
|
|
My ideology just makes it more difficult for you to justify stealing from others to achieve some legal means to an end. It truly is sad if our civilization cares less for the ill and inferm. It's even sadder when we have to steal by covert indirect violence and deception, via unjust laws, in an attempt to try to remedy the situation. All this while trying to appear benevolent and kind. Shame.
What, exactly is your concern, again? Because it's not clear to me. Share your hardships with us. Uhhhh... errrr... ummm... Read above quote. Rinse and repeat as necessary. |
|
|
|
I'm not sure I understand your second quoted point here - are you saying failure to pay tax is a threat, or infringing on my right to healthcare is a threat? In any case, your ideology here would make life very hard for people with disabilities or illnesses. I feel it would be a sad day for civilisation, the day we start charging them the full cost of their healthcare. I expect that a majority couldn't afford it, and would succumb. [sarcasm] But hey, it would improve efficiency, right? [/sarcasm]
My ideology just makes it more difficult for you to justify stealing from others to achieve some legal means to an end. It truly is sad if our civilization cares less for the ill and inferm. It's even sadder when we have to steal by covert indirect violence and deception, via unjust laws, in an attempt to try to remedy the situation. All this while trying to appear benevolent and kind. Shame. |
|
|
|
Are you suggesting that orderliness is an important component of an everyone-makes-their-own-rules libertarian society?
Orderly from the standpoint of absence of violence. You could have a disorderly home, I don't care. I do care if you have lack of order and logic in your laws, especially when they commit acts of aggression against me. If he'd been my neighbour for 20 years, well, I could assume he wouldn't suddenly detonate it. Nonetheless I would insist that it be destroyed. It would be worth losing a 20 year friendship if I knew I wouldn't have to live beside a nuke-wielding maniac. And don't tell me he might not be a maniac. *Anyone* who holds a nuke is a maniac.
Possession of a nuke equals maniac now? You own it, you're a maniac. I take it from you, now I'm an maniac. Someone takes it from me, they're a maniac...etc, etc., ad nauseum. Brilliant piece of logic. Thanks for that enlightening bit of drivel. I think you don't know so much about the differences between the nuclear material you need for a bomb and that which you need for a power plant. But technical problems aside, if I found out he was trying to build a nuclear power plant beside my land, you're damn right - I'd drive him away and if he resisted, well, it would be...... MMR again!!!!!! Ask me why? Ohhhhh, let me think now, what happened recently with a nuclear power plant....
Accidents happen. If accidents happen, therefore we should just get rid of the human race. How was that for logic? And yes, it is possible to repurpose nuclear weapons materials for use in nuclear power plants. Look it up. |
|
|
|
|
Laissez faire, telle devrait être la devise de toute puissance publique, depuis que le monde est civilisé ... Détestable principe que celui de ne vouloir grandir que par l'abaissement de nos voisins! Il n'y a que la méchanceté et la malignité du coeur de satisfaites dans ce principe, et l’intérêt y est opposé. Laissez faire, morbleu! Laissez faire!!
Translation:
"Leave it be, that should be the motto of all public powers, as the world is civilized ... That we cannot grow except by lowering our neighbors is a detestable notion! Only malice and malignity of heart is satisfied with such a principle and our (national) interest is opposed to it. Leave it be, for heaven's sake! Leave it be!
Author, René de Voyer, Marquis d'Argenson (1736)
|
|
|
|
Ownership and intent don't matter. If its there, its a threat and must be disarmed. If you fail to disarm it, you are at the mercy of the person in control. He doesn't have to leave home but he may as well have a blade at your throat.
You already know this - you agreed that society has the right to use the best way to protect itself from nukes. I'm not sure why you want me to lead you through the same baby steps to sanity again.
You're a liar. I said if it was the best way, and it was determined that there was intent to do harm. 'And' not 'Or'. Possession and intent is necessary. Discuss intent, or I have nothing more to say to you. |
|
|
|
You are still on this idea that you acknowledge that public services are needed but you don't want to have to pay for them.
Do you not see that is unreasonable and that it makes you appear somewhat ridiculous?
You made certain services, "public services" by mere decree without considering the consequences of your actions. That style of government is stereotypical of totalitarian governments. This being progressive really starts to make sense in that context. That is the 'might makes right' type of governing I loath. You make a law just because you can, not because you should. I would almost concede that "positive laws" could be made to protect life, liberty and property as a consequence of the physical aggressions induced by others; and that you might tax to intercede for that purpose. I could barely stomach that, but no...oh no!..., that's not enough, you have to go way beyond that. Give an inch and you take a country mile. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Your "public services" are absolutely and unequivocally unreasonable and ridiculous. Never. |
|
|
|
Wait, you want him to sit around and wait to be killed? And you talk about him being someone to fear? What about people who think that we don't have a right to protect ourselves? Surely they are far more scary? Like you for example Fred. You want people to accept that dying for someone else's right to a nuke is their duty to you. That is scary talk.
You make it sound as if I pulled the trigger. I may have a laissez-faire attitude towards all types of material possessions, but I certainly am no suicidal bomber. Hardly scary talk. Many of you speak outwardly of killing first and asking questions later. That kind of attitude seems to me, at the very least, arbitrary, capricious and unpredictable. Not exactly the kind of behavior one would like for a orderly society. Let's suppose you asked your neighbor if he had a nuke. If he said yes, from what I've read here, you'd kill him on the spot. Or alternatively, the second you found out he had a nuke, you'd kill him. Would that be an accurate assessment? So let's just entertain this a bit further. Suppose you found out he was dismantling the nuke to use the materials in a power plant, how would you feel now? Justified? Maybe a little guilty? Should you be prosecuted? And don't say, wellll... I'd ask a few more questions, ...or... I'd do some more investigating... or... I'd check his criminal record... or... Or nothing, you would do nothing of the kind. Owning a nuke is equivalent to intent to kill. If you did any of the former "investigating" you'd be determining intent, which was the whole point I was trying to make in the first place. OWNERSHIP DOES NOT EQUAL INTENT. Stop it with the stupidity. |
|
|
|
Nobody is arguing that assumption because it's true today. It all depends on how you define "threat". Just to give an example: - If you point a gun at me, even from your own property, you are threatening me.
- If you shout abuse at me, you are threatening me (hate speech, or inciting others to hatred).
- If your widget factory emits too much sulphur, you are threatening my livestock and my livelihood.
- If you copy my music, you are threatening my music career.
- If you fail to pay your tax, you are indirectly infringing on my right to e.g. healthcare, and so threatening my health.
- etc
As in all things threatening, apply the following: Act proportionally and appropriately. Try not to escalate the situation. Discern intent if possible. Try to understand. However and considering the above, 1 is a threat, you might need to pull your gun out too. However and considering the above, 2 is a threat, you might want to verbally respond in kind. I suggest you not use hate speech. However and considering the above, 3 is an aggression already (it is an act in progress). Sue to enjoin. Of course, it depends also on the toxicity and concentration of sulphur. Take immediate action if necessary - your life may depend on it. However and considering the above, 4 is not a threat or an aggression, it's competition. You're only response would be to ask nicely to refrain, contract, or compete in kind. However and considering the above, 4 is an aggression and threat, but not to you. You have no right to the property of others (taxation), therefore you do not have a right to healthcare unless you specifically paid for it with your own monies. Forcing others to pay their tax, because you have, is not sufficient justification. For example, it does NOT follow that: 1) If I do X, you must do X. Likewise, 2) If X is right, you must do X. Likewise, 3) If I was forced to do X, you must be forced to do X. |
|
|
|
I think it's not so much that libertarianism is loaded with contradiction, but that *people* have conflicting thoughts over what rights they have themselves and what rights they should extend to others. It seems that b2c and fred think that it's enough for one person to declare "I have the right to do such-and-such" and as long as it doesn't directly physically cause harm to anyone, then that's ok.
Yes that's mostly correct, except to say that libertarians don't extend rights to others, that would imply duty. Duty implies contract. Contract implies consent. If you have no consent, you have no duty to others, unless by duty you mean to say not aggress. As in, "you have a duty in your actions to not aggress another". But that's a bit pedantic I would think. But they don't seem to realise that when I demand rights, I am actually demanding them from others. That is, my "rights" are not decided by me, but are defined by what all the people around me permit me to do. They don't come from within, but from without. And, obviously, the rights one person demands of others will often not be what those others will concede to him. And so, conflict arises. It can be obvious, like 'who gets to eat the apples from this apple tree', or it can be more subtle, like 'what may I do with this computer'. It can be balanced, like 'don't walk over my vegetable garden or I'll beat you with this stick', or it could be lopsided in favour of the stronger party like 'don't drive over my vegetable garden with your tank'.
Libertarians don't demand rights. That would project an outward action on another to fulfill some promise or agreement of the enforcer. Enforcement may come from without but rights don't, unless you're aggressed, in which case they might. It's contingent on the aggressor. Rights aren't conceded. It would be fine if everyone in the libertarian community were of a similar mind, such as a small farming community in the middle ages. But we're not talking about small farming communities here - we're talking about the internet-enabled, jet-setting, maxi-consumer global village, with people from all walks of life, from all creeds, from all political bents, and from all racial denominations; each with their own opinion of what should, and shouldn't be allowed; hell, many probably wouldn't even know how to formulate a consistent morality. fr & b2c claim to despise MightMakesRight, but that's what libertarianism would all boil down to in the end.
Any conflict not resolved in a non-agressive manner with arbitration will likely result in force and violence. To be explicitly and obviously clear one last time, "might makes right" ignores all actions and reactions, considerations and circumstances, and boils it down to, "I said so, I'm more powerful than you, I win, I'm right, I make the rules, therefore might makes right, no exceptions". If there are any libertarians that believe that way, they aren't libertarian. Socrates said it best, "'Might makes right' has been described as the credo of totalitarian regimes." I tell you, if libertarianism comes to pass, and anyone were to come within 100 miles of me with a nuclear weapon, I would do whatever I could to destroy them. I would neither offer nor wait to negotiate or debate the finer points of political philosophy. You're already infringing what I consider to be my rights and are already threatening my life, irrespective of what you consider your rights to be.
You describe your credo with precision. You believe in totalitarianism. No consideration for intent. You must kill. Disgustingly narrowminded you are. It's people like you we should all fear. |
|
|
|
By careful to whom you attribute logic. I clearly laid out my logic to you in my reply to you. Nowhere did I imply your scenario. Yes, I declared it a threat and likened it to one million guns pointed simultaneously at one million people, and I stand behind that, but I never would've drawn the conclusion you claim I should logically follow.
On a slightly different note, which of the following are you familiar with?
- Oklahoma city bombing
- The Unabomber
- 9/11
- Post 9/11 Anthrax mailings
- Times Square attempted bombing
- Norway shooter (and bomber)
- Terrorism in general
- School shootings
- Discontents, malcontents and psychos, in general
I'm familiar with all of the above, but fail to see how they differ significantly regarding imminent threat or threat in general, or the consequences that follow a violent act. Am I to assume these differ from possession of a nuclear weapon or related materials. Other than killing more effectively, that's about it. |
|
|
|
That is a really weak rebuttal, especially when you factor in how implausible your original scenario was. Do I need to remind you what the scenario was in your original rebuttal? I will. It was this: you said that it would change hands one million times, and each time, the prior owner would be killed. Actually, when we think about it, how is that an argument for ownership of nukes? I then presented to you a set of much more likely scenarios, and you then assume that your audience is stupid by suggesting that another scenario in which the nuke never gets detonated somehow renders any other scenario as not significant.
Try harder. Better yet, don't even bother. I have yet to see any theory from you or bitcoin2cash that is plausible or appears to be anything but absolutely absurd.
The original line of logic was merely to parrot the logic used in the referent parent thread. I don't claim it as valid, and I don't believe in it. It was used to demonstrate the ridiculousness of that type and line of logic (possession = intent), not to enshrine it. Reread it, I used by your logic not mine, thus a parroting. |
|
|
|
I think *you* know better. We're talking specifically about conflicting claims of ownership or conflicting claimed rights here, and how such conflicts should be resolved. I claim you may not possess a nuclear weapon in my vicinity, you claim you may. Neither of us has the "one true concept" and since the debate has not yet produced a concession from either side, we must fight it out. If that's not MightMakesRight then I haven't understood the meaning of those three words; please enlighten me.
As things are I'd allow you to exist but, in a libertarian world, the moment you sought to bring a nuclear weapon within my vicinity, I would seek to destroy you and disarm the weapon (though I'm no expert on that). (edit: if it's not clear, my justification is that you are curtailing my right to a peaceful and tranquil existence).
I'd be nervous if you did it even now, but at least I can somehow rely on the NPT and assume you were an authorised expert. Having said that, I'd probably high-tail it out of there anyway... just to be on the safe side.
I do know better and so do you, but I'll play along for the moment. b2c believes in the NAP. He would not aggress another unless he was threatened or aggressed first. "Might makes right", if acting independent of the NAP, indicates that you can aggress for any reason, regardless of the individual rights of others, and solely because of your superior strength. |
|
|
|
Why do you think the chances of the new owner disarming the nuke to be zero? That's the first fallacy of your silly argument.
The second fallacy: Let's say, that it's not zero, but one in one million, for the sake of argument. Why would each successive owner instead not choose to either have nearly impregnable security guarding the nuke, or more likely, simply not advertise it's existence, thus ensuring no further exchange?
The third fallacy: you assume the nuke is never detonated as it changes hands. But consider if it does. In that case, the total death toll is all that died in your scenario plus the toll from its detonation.
I'll leave you to ponder the second and third fallacies on your own. Let's revisit the first fallacy. You seem to be indicating that the chance of disarmament is zero upon each exchange of ownership. Assuming that to have a grain of truth to it, then it follows that increasing law enforcement would increase the chance of disarmament from zero to some higher number, as that is generally the case when law enforcement confiscates a gun from a criminal who is waving it about pointing it at people. Now, I can hear it coming: you're going to say that increasing law enforcement engaging in the act of confiscation will increase the chance of it detonating as the owner strives to protect his ownership of the weapon. However, if we examine the behavior of criminals, (cartels, etc.), we can see that owners of weapons generally don't discriminate between law enforcement or other criminals when they are being subdued - they will threaten use of the weapon in either case. Therefore, it stands to reason that the best course of action is to limit the proliferation of such weapons in the first place.
If we're going to include all plausible scenarios, then we have to include the one in which the nuke never gets detonated and the uses beyond defense are various. I'm not a statistician and I don't know of many that could conclude with any degree of accuracy what the possible outcomes of complex scenarios might be. We've been living with nukes for a while now, and I'm unaware of any "accidental" detonations lately. To assume that the Non-Proliferation treaty is the sole cause of that "safety" record or that there couldn't be other ways of treating the situation is presumptuous. |
|
|
|
Each individual has their own concept of rights and none of them is the "one true concept". Where they conflict, we can debate it or we can fight over it.
Gasp! Shock! You're hardly suggesting... m...m...m...MightMakesRight...  hahhahhahahhahahhah! ZING! Got him! You know better. b2c is claiming if you're the rightful owner you can defend you and your property. Now who has the facilities of a 4-year old? |
|
|
|
No. It's much worse. Possession of a nuke is akin to constantly pointing a million guns at millions of people simultaneously. Desire to own a nuke is akin to desiring to point a million guns simultaneously at a million people perpetually. Except you must also take note that in the case of the nuke, you need only pull one trigger, as opposed to pulling a million triggers.
Actually, it's even worse. It's akin to putting one bomb each in 100,000 homes, all controlled via a remote control trigger. Actually, it's even worse, due to radioactive fallout. To think that there are people here implying that pointing a gun at someone is worse. And to think that these people are also arguing that a knife in your kitchen drawer is similar.
If you don't understand that, then you you have the logical facilities of a four year old.
If your implying I have the logical facilities of a 4-year old, how about you try this on for size: Let's assume I'm a nuclear bomb engineer. The second I complete my task (the nuke), any one or all of my co-workers automatically have the right to put a bullet in my head (by your logic, it's a threat). That person who killed me, then owns the bomb. The person in closest proximity to him is now the most threatened, so he kills the newest owner and so on and so forth. This continues on forever until there are no owners of nuclear weapons, but then there aren't any people either, except one perhaps. Seems we just got rid of a million people the same as the nuclear bomb. We can't say that possession directly implies threat. I know I could own a nuke and never want to use it on anyone or anything. My possession doesn't equate to my intent to use. I may want to use the materials to start a nuclear power plant. But that's just me. |
|
|
|
What every family has its own vial of smallpox for research? That's what every factory worker and waitress needs? Is that your way of saying you can't think of a rational argument?
No, not everybody cares about smallpox research, anymore than they care about recycling research, or research in general. Just because everybody has an infinite number of rights, are they willing to exercise any or a portion of any of them, at any particular time, or at all for that matter. Does everybody have to provide a rational reason for why they have what they have? And to whom do they answer for these things they own? And why should they believe that these persons are any better at knowing what to do with their stuff than the owner does? Who are these masters we must subject ourselves to? |
|
|
|
Um, no they can't.
You have to aim a gun directly at him and be within a relatively miniscule distance to kill him with it. You can only kill one person at a time with it.
A nuke need not be aimed and it can kill anyone and anything within tens of miles immediately, and anyone and anything within hundreds of miles over time.
Can you make a law that measures intent, and if so, can you determine what to do about it without denying the individual his rights? Pointing a gun at a person can demonstrate intent. How does one point a nuke, as it were? Is possession of a nuke 'intent equivalent' to the threatening act of pointing a gun at another person? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
