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 Metaphor withdrawn.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. Replace "point of a gun" with unprovoked and un-consented-to aggressive force. Statement stands. |
|
|
|
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?
If you can find it in the periodic table of the chemical elements, then you can possess it. I'm not going to answer your power plant question as it's a red herring and digresses from the topic at hand. |
|
|
|
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 Metaphor withdrawn.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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
Fred, you have acknowledged that the service is needed. You are using the service - the protection that every member of society needs is provided to you. It has to be paid for and taxation is the correct way to do it. The only false statement is your strange idea that you can enjoy the protection and opt out of paying for it.
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. |
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
|
See my rebuttal. You confused things that you can do yourself with things that you need society to do for you. You need society to provide 24/7 care for the violently mentally ill. Since you are using the service society provides, you must pay for it through taxation.
Non sequitur and Straw Man. What actions can be done collectively can also be individually. Forceful organizing can also be done by freely organizing. Please withdraw and rescind your false statements. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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?
I tell you what. I want to be practical here. Can you give me an example of a precise method of regulating nukes so I can review it? Please don't just say, we just need nuclear regulations generally. I loathe generalities. I can regulate every single human activity possible, if I think it has some illegitimate use. I could regulate forks if I can poke you in the eye; as an example. Give me a specific example. Don't just say, "well geez there ought a be a law...". I've about heard enough of that to go around for a lifetime. I'm getting sick of it, to be perfectly honest. Don't just make a law that automatically makes me a criminal. If I wasn't a criminal yesterday, and I acquired some "material matter" today, and now I am a criminal, I'm probably going to have a problem with it. |
|
|
|
Then you are being odd. You agree that rights are social constructs, you have invented a right to nuclear weapons and you want us to fall in with your new right.
Perhaps "odd" is being charitable. Even within your own dream logic, asserting that people have a duty to wait for the mushroom clouds of nuclear explosions does not make sense. Its a very short step from endless nuclear explosions to total extinction of humanity.
If I recall somewhere in this OP thread somebody said that you don't have to wait for a "bullet to rip thru your chest" before you defend yourself. You don't have to wait for the nuclear clouds, just follow the threatening bread crumbs and do something about that. Admittedly, it was a little sad man had to create such a destructive object for us to worry about so incessantly. |
|
|
|
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? I guess if I play the middle ground, that makes it so much better, right? I would like to think if I were to acquire a nuke and were to make threatening gestures with it, you could then label me a fringe nutcase. Sure, fair enough. I don't like nukes. I don't they serve a useful purpose, per se. I don't think Monday night football does either, or for that matter, cubist art and speed eating. But that's just me. I'm a bit fringe I guess. |
|
|
|
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 know what the point of it was. I don't agree with the method. It's destructive behavior, and it leads to some people having a "God Complex". You're not my nanny, my mommy, or my supreme being. Don't assume. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
Sorry you can't get away with that sophistry. You say that the protection is needed but that you should not have to pay because you don't "want" it. If its needed, "want" doesn't arise.
See my example of "needs" earlier in this thread. If you like, I can substitute 'need' with 'want' if you like. No prob. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G001I've linked and see that you reproduce his logic errors. Still waiting to see why you think you are entitled to the protection of the state but that you feel that you should not have to pay for it. While I'm sure there are very few documents in recorded history that reproduce logic in perfection, I'm sure your philosophies are much worse, have more holes and less logic than his. I prefer to take a less dangerous, more logical and less government route. In answer to your entitlement question regarding the protection of the state. I never asked for the protection of the state. I don't want the protection of the state. If I were to accept their assistance, I would probably be "on the hook" for it. I'm not. I don't have a problem with finding my own security. The state doesn't want to give me a choice, so they tax me. It's forced "entitlement" - not nice. |
|
|
|
No answer?
Asked and answered. |
|
|
|
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? See my quote above. I'm sure there isn't much to read between the lines. |
|
|
|
Why bother? The issue is that you want to consume public services but you don't want to pay for them. Reading books by obscure 19th century guys won't really do in lieu of payment.
Because even when technology changes, human nature does not. Obscure, huh? Yeah, the 'old' truth can't be anything like the 'new' truth now can it? As if murder, theft and enslavement are out of vogue these days. If you want I'll even provide a link for you, if you're still inclined. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
