You seem to be missing the basics here. Its a weapon of mass destruction. Once someone has it, you have no say where they use it. You can't send them a fine can you?
The upshot of your post is that if Jared Laughner is sane, then he should have had a nuke instead of a gun. And instead of killing a few people, he could have killed a million or so.
You know what Hawker? You've got a real catch-22 problem. We already know that the technology for Nukes exists. If you were to regulate the dissemination of nuclear technology, it's production, and sales, you have to assume you have put it into the hands of those who you trust. If nukes are devastating, and I'm not disputing that they aren't, why should I entrust you (or your trusted agents the gov'mint) to do it any better than anybody else? What's interesting about your theory of nuclear regulation is that the only people that I'm aware of that have actually used it as a weapon have actually been governments. They, whoever 'they' may be, have done more 'nuke' killing than everybody else combined. I'm not sure your theories are as sound as you make them out to be. Besides, if you do a little research, it takes a lot of energy and talented individuals to actually produce nuclear materials and weaponry. I'd be willing to wager a bet, that if they were as intelligent as I think they are, and they knew the devastation it was capable of, they aren't likely to just hand it over to just anybody. Just saying. |
|
|
|
Fred agrees that the incarceration of violent mentally ill is needed to protect people from violence. Fred agrees that he benefits as much as anyone else does from that protection. The specific point he disagrees with is whether or not he should have to pay for that protection.
If you don't mind, go read "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat. The text is available online and it's only about 50 pages. Let me know what you think. |
|
|
|
Then you agree that society can intervene onto someone's land when the objective is to protect the survival of species. Fine - we are in agreement.
No and no again. |
|
|
|
With respect, you are the one who says that Jared Loughner should have had access to nuclear weapons before his attack on Tuscon. That is silly. Unless you have a better adjective to describe giving nukes to all who want them?
Nope never said that. Nice try. What did I say about putting words in my mouth. I prefer tasty tidbits, or maybe gum, or just a stiff drink would be good about now. Go read up on what a 'Straw Man' is and get back to the art of argumentation, maybe you'll start to make sense. |
|
|
|
Jared Laughner could not be stopped by any system. He had no record of violence and was well within his rights until he started killing people.
And there is no way to stop someone with a nuke and a detonator.
Its not enough to say that its unlikely Walmart will sell nukes. What you need to do is show how no-one like Jared Laughner can have a nuclear bomb or else come right out and say that being nuked is the price we have to pay for your idea of a free society.
There is only one perfect way to do that. Kill everyone but you. We'll just assume -wink wink- you would never never ever ever, promise, cross my heart hope to die, explode a nuke, right? As if. Stop being silly. I'll stop being silly when you stop being stupid. |
|
|
|
You can't say you like owls, and wolves, and whales, and ants, and HIV viruses and then say its OK to make species extinct. If someone is doing something that affects a species survival, society has a duty to stop them.
I dare you to find anywhere where I said extinct. Get back to me whenever. |
|
|
|
If you agree with the need for the service, then you agree it must be paid for. The service is not for 1 person or for 1 group of people - its for everyone in society. So everyone in society has to pay for it. The mechanism for collecting that payment is called tax. Stop please calling it "plunder" and "stealing" and "theft" - tax is the best way to provide the service.
I need food or I will eventually starve... I need air or I will eventually suffocate... I need water or I will eventually dehydrate... I need clothes in cold weather or I will eventually die of hyperthermia... therefore...wait for it... I must tax to get those things I need. Yes? Lovely logic. Non sequitur. Straw Man argument. Moving on. |
|
|
|
Now, as for you owning insects on your property, I won't play the ethics card there. But I will point out your ignorance with regard to the complexities of ecosystems. Recall the post I made about wolves, trophic cascades and riparian zones? Either you do, or you decided it wasn't convenient to your belief system. Better to remain naive than to be inconvenienced by knowledge.
Are you familiar with the spotted owl and the controversy surrounding it? I'm quite certain you don't understand what the purpose of saving the spotted owl is, based on your general remarks. Or do you?
The ethics card stops at humans. If you include other species, then you can divide and conquer anybody because of the flora and fauna you might find on their property. Sounds like we have a land grab about to commence. Nice... where will it stop I wonder? By the way, I do like owls, and wolves, and whales, and ants, and HIV viruses too. I'll probably just leave them to their business. Just stay out of my back yard. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Um, you are using the service. The incarceration of violent mentally ill protects you just as much as it protects any citizen.
The important thing here is that you agree the service is needed. You just don't want to pay for the protection you receive. Unless you have something more intelligent that "I want it for free and I want it now" I think your attempt to offer an idea for organising a society has just fallen apart.
I'd really appreciate it that you not put words in my mouth. I'm also not interested in organizing a society. If a society comes about by and thru its individuality, then great. I'm not interested in social engineering. I'll leave that up to the Lenin's and Hitler's and Stalin's to figure out. I do agree with you that the service is needed, just not that I need to steal to get it. I'd like to avoid that, as it has a really bad stigma associated with it, and tends to leave a bad taste in my mouth... you know, a lot like the words you were trying to shove in there. |
|
|
|
Jared Laughner could not be stopped by any system. He had no record of violence and was well within his rights until he started killing people.
And there is no way to stop someone with a nuke and a detonator.
Its not enough to say that its unlikely Walmart will sell nukes. What you need to do is show how no-one like Jared Laughner can have a nuclear bomb or else come right out and say that being nuked is the price we have to pay for your idea of a free society.
There is only one perfect way to do that. Kill everyone but you. We'll just assume -wink wink- you would never never ever ever, promise, cross my heart hope to die, explode a nuke, right? As if. |
|
|
|
So you say there is a problem with taxes, then you want me to come up with something better? There is no problem with taxes - tax is the correct way to pay for the incarceration of people who need to be incarcerated. If you have an issue with that, then you come up with something better. If you can't, stop bleating that society is "plundering" its citizens when it raises taxes to pay for the services they voted for.
I have no problem if the citizens in "your" society voted for a tax. Go right ahead and "plunder" each other. I did not vote for that so, therefore and thusly, I'm not in accord with your methods and means. Do not come after me to collect, for I did not give you my explicit consent to do so. I will not use your services, so I should not be expected to pay for them. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Emotionally? As usual, you're being naive. It's analogous to you being informed that you had better put tires on your car that are rated for its weight, and you accusing the guy making that recommendation that he just likes the way the tires look.
The less you know, the more cool your ideas look. And the arguments against your ideas must just be emotional. You've said some very strange things in this forum.
Genius. You find the only potentially speculative comment regarding an emotional state, and you attack it. You don't actually consider my logic or reasoning, but attack a comment on feelings and emotions. Perfect. Why are we having this conversation? A tire's rating and looks are two separate matters altogether, which was my entire point. An emotion is an attitude about a specific thing (an indisputable object due to it's existence), because the objects is a "certain way". I'm merely saying your personal feelings about the disposition of my property should have no legal effect on the use of my property. If you don't like how I use my property, you don't get to take it from me just because you feel that way. I could do the same to you, but for different reasons. Where does one draw the line? I say it is at the edge of my property, period. |
|
|
|
You are avoiding answering the question.
There are people who need to be incarcerated and cared for 24/7 because they are a danger to themselves and to society. This is expensive. You have said that you personally would not contribute to this cost. If we do not have taxation, how will their care be paid for?
How about you try and use your imagination and assume that taxes aren't available to you. Now come up with a solution. It isn't that hard to do. If you can't do that, you really are putting blinders on, or you're more ignorant than you sound. Should I have to do your homework for you? You remind me of some people I work with. They feign ignorance, do nothing but ask questions all day long, and then defer to others when they want to get something done. If they can't do that, they pretend to do something, intentionally fail at it, and then say it wasn't possible because they couldn't do it -as if that conclusion had any veracity whatsoever. Don't be so naive to think that if a solution can't be found by you, it can only be found at the end of a bayonet. |
|
|
|
No road owner in his right mind would charge a fucking fee to drive on his road. For one, there is no way to enforce such bullshit. Nobody is going to use your fucking road. Society is going to build around the son-of-a-bitch.
It is so unprofitable for such a road to exist that it wouldn't be built. No home owner isn't going to be obfuscated by some retard. This scenario is unlikely to occur in any case.
What most likely happen that a sub-company from a group of businesses that want to bring more consumers to their store will maintain and build roads for residents free of charge and collect profits in people being able to actually drive to their places of business. Fuck, the roads will most likely be mutually-owned property by the people that live on the street and they will pay a HOA fee to have it cleaned, paved, etc.
I mean, is it that hard to conger up an actual desirable and viable solution?
In conclusion, you people are frankly being naive.
Calm down, no need to blow a blood vessel. Sheesh. I'm only arguing a edge case that's all. I'm not even saying the above would be the average. I believe in free market solutions and little if any government intervention, so don't mistake my intentions. |
|
|
|
You think care of the mentally ill is mollycoddling! Are you totally cut off from the real world? Right now over half of all who are imprisoned in the US for violence are mentally ill. You can't possibly expect poor families to cope with the 24/7 care of violent ill people. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/15/opinion/15harcourt.html Please stop trying to avoid the reality that there are people who are so dangerous they need to be locked up. And offer a semi-intelligent way for their 24/7 care to be paid for. I was speaking about the mollycoddling of you and your ideology specifically. Assisting the inferm is not mollycoddling. I do believe that it is possible to take care of the ill without plundering your neighbor to do it. You have no faith in humanity at all it seems. You misread the article. It said that many of the inmates were reporting mental illness problems. That does not necessarily imply that was the reason they were imprisoned in the first place. Unless what you're going to say next is, they are mentally ill because they commit violent crime. I sure hope not. |
|
|
|
The reason why we tolerate the possibility of cell phone rates being indiscriminately raised is the very fact we can switch providers easily. Who in their right mind would buy a house with only a 2 year contract that says nothing about the future increases of road rates? Who in their right mind would build a house with the only service being a road that can have it's price skyrocket at will?
It isn't so much that it shouldn't happen, but that it can happen. In the cases where the contract can be changed by the prerogative of the road owner (increasing his rates), what does the home owner then do? What is the consequence and resolution procedure in court due to his trespass? For the time being the home owner is prevented from leaving his home by the excessive rate increases due to his circumstances effected by the road owner. Maybe the road owner doesn't want to commit to a fixed price structure, or have his property under continual lease. Maybe he wants to convert his road to some other use. It is his property, and unless he permanently contracts with his neighbors for its use, he may withdraw at any time at his own discretion. I'm personally not aware of any contracts that are of an indefinite nature. |
|
|
|
Sounds like you're trying to impose a human construct (the notion of property rights) on things because it's convenient for your beliefs.
Without that "convenience" you have misery, confusion, chaos and ultimately death due to war. It isn't just convenient for me. It's convenient for everybody. I certainly am not the chief architect of that belief and I certainly won't be the last. You can own a whale? Really? Why is that? Wait, let me see - it's because you believe you have that right. Who enforces that right?
Sure I can own a whale. What's so hard about that? In the case of enforcement, and if I'm capable, that'd be me. If I need assistance in securing my whale, I might employ somebody else to help me. Wow, is it really that difficult? That river in your backyard - by your logic, you can contain it (create a dam), and thus you own the water in the river. Is that acceptable?
Maybe the riverbed or the borders of the river, but maybe not all of the water flowing by/thru per se. It would depend on who's downstream of me. Another edge case I suppose, but not impossible to envision. To be clear, I understand the necessity of property rights, and believe in them. To a point.
Lemme guess, to the point it emotionally inconveniences you right? I look at it this way: unless whatever you do specifically brings harm to my property thru some physical force (as forcefully applied to me and the things embordered within my land), it's merely my opinion that your use of your property sucks, and I can choose to not like it. Notwithstanding that emotional feeling, if my property remains uneffected physically, there shouldn't be anything legal I would be able to do about it. On the other hand if you pollute my land, trespass my land, or effectuate specific physical changes in my property, you just might have something to worry about. |
|
|
|
Any idea which leads us down the road of having to address these questions when they don't require addressing with our current solution. Why do you obsess over this stuff? I think most people do not want all roads to be private. It would suck. Is that too hard to accept?
The idea of private roads really sucks. How can you tell? Because you have these dilemmas when you start discussing them.
To say that a current system is good just because it is, probably isn't going to win you many supporters. I'm sure we're all aware of all of the dastardly things governments have done in the past to their civilians to know that it isn't as great as you think it is. I don't have a problem with private roads actually. I do think there are some edge cases that need addressing, but I don't think they have impossible solutions, they may even have better solutions. You can't say private roads suck. I've driven on a few, and didn't have any problems at all. If anything, just rephrasing the contract language would probably solve most issues. I've got a dilemma for you. What about eminent domain (used for roads all the time)? That's a really nasty dilemma. Solve that one. |
|
|
|
Air. Water. Moisture. Invertebrates. Fish. Whales. Migratory animals. Eroded soil. Soil in the rivers. Heck, rivers (but I said that when I said water). Oceans (it's like air). Aquifers (it's water, you know). The negative space in caves (air, you know). Birds (free as a bird?). Heck, let's just say wild animals. Of course, now we need to acknowledge that they are beings, and by extension, we need to acknowledge their homes, which is the air, sea and ground.
Air, unless contained, no. Water, unless contained, no. Invertebrates, fish, whales, migratory animals? They're all possessable unless they aren't yet. I'm not sure if you understood my meaning. To own something you have to be able to identify it and contain it for it to become property. If you can't do those things, then it's likely unoccupied or abandoned for now, but could be obtained in the future. And no I don't qualify a wild animal as having a "home", at least not in the legal sense. That would imply they have property rights. They don't. Humans have property rights. Ecosystems.
Ah! Ecosystems are like air! They move around, they change, and what happens over here affects over there - just like air, because it mixes.
We need air. That's just plain fucking obvious. But do we need ecosystems? Ummm, they're really complex. Yeah, so unless one makes the effort to understand them, maybe one should be careful about who has what rights to change them.
Yes one should be careful in one's environment. However, my use of my property is exclusive to me, and you have no greater right to tell me what I can do on my land any more than I can dictate to you what you can do on yours. That's the whole premise of property. It derives from the latin word 'proprius', or one's own. If I can't do what I want on my property because you say I can't, my property ceases to be mine and becomes yours. Of course, I could no doubt do the same to you. Do that back and forth a few times and you've got yourself a war/feud. Not interested. |
|
|
|
This is the whole point. Consider this:
Y is the owner of road A. Y charges 5c/mi. Now Z buys road A from Y. Z ups the rate, and changes the way the road can be used. Ever had your cell provider be bought out? It's not uncommon for service providers to buy other service providers, and then phase out programs, pricing, etc. It's very annoying. If we're annoyed enough, we switch providers. But how do you switch roads?
Ever here the phrase "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"? Sure you have. Is the government broken? In many ways. Is road management one of them? Not really.
Let's be honest. The current system of road management is much preferable to these crackpot solutions. And it already exists! The takeaway from all this is this: stop the silly debates about proposing to the letter the concept of property rights for everything. It doesn't make sense.
You didn't answer the question. What should be the consequence of the trespass? Additionally, which was the greater right, the right to not be circumscribed or the right to not be trespassed? What would be a good free market solution? What or which crackpot solutions would you be referring to? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
