Freedom Of Association?

[GideonGono]

I suggest you think before you speak. In a libertarian society, there is no law that requires one to keep a firearm, nor is there a mandatory period in which an individual goes through training in the military. If there is no law to keep a firearm, then there is no cause for one such as yourself to dream that in your fabled libertarian society, all would choose to keep a firearm. Nor is there any reason for one such as yourself to fantasize that in fabled libertarian society, all would receive the training that one gets when enrolled in the military.

Remember, in your fantasies, your libertarian society is not Switzerland.

Think before you speak.

Have you already forgotten that you described a hypothetical situation* where "everyone chooses to have a weapon," and you concluded that "then the number of injuries due to accidents, twitchy fingers and rage would likely rise." And I responded by showing that in Switzerland "all able-bodied male citizens keep fully automatic firearms at home" and virtually no one dies "due to accidents, twitchy fingers and rage."

Military training is irrelevant to "the number of injuries due to accidents, twitchy fingers and rage" otherwise these events would be common in gun owning populations in countries without mandatory military training. Which they are NOT   <--- (I guess my mistake was to assume that this is OBVIOUS, unless of course you were thinking)


* - Are these not your words? Is it not you who speaks of a scenario where everyone owns a weapon?

2. If, contrary to point 1 above, everyone chooses to have a weapon, then the number of injuries due to accidents, twitchy fingers and rage would likely rise.

[ascent]

Mandatory gun ownership by those who have received training is different than voluntary gun ownership by those who do not require training. Mandatory gun ownership does not imply that one chooses to own a gun or needs the gun. In a society where most choose to own a gun, the implication is that it was necessary to do so, and that is very different from the climate in Switzerland.

The dynamics are completely different. Furthermore, Switzerland has a government, and more importantly, resides in a geopolitical climate which obviously favors the choices it makes. Such geopolitical climates are not guaranteed to be uniform elsewhere, and thus your comparison may be weak for the following reasons, at the very least:

1. Mountainous terrain
2. Swiss banking rules and their history with WWII.
3. Population density
4. Preexisting social distribution within its population.

[GideonGono]

Mandatory gun ownership by those who have received training is different than voluntary gun ownership by those who do not require training. Mandatory gun ownership does not imply that one chooses to own a gun or needs the gun. In a society where most choose to own a gun, the implication is that it was necessary to do so, and that is very different from the climate in Switzerland.

The dynamics are completely different. Furthermore, Switzerland has a government, and more importantly, resides in a geopolitical climate which obviously favors the choices it makes. Such geopolitical climates are not guaranteed to be uniform elsewhere, and thus your comparison may be weak for the following reasons, at the very least:

1. Mountainous terrain
2. Swiss banking rules and their history with WWII.
3. Population density
4. Preexisting social distribution within its population.

None of this supports your claim that wide spread gun ownership (by people without military training) = chaos

Military training is irrelevant to "the number of injuries due to accidents, twitchy fingers and rage" otherwise these events would be common in gun owning populations in countries without mandatory military training. Which they are NOT

[ascent]

None of this supports your claim that wide spread gun ownership (by people without military training) = chaos

Do you have a solid set of examples of wide spread gun ownership (by people without military training) in various geopolitical scenarios, especially those with limited government, or as in the scenario favored by myrkul, no government?

You might want to think through various scenarios, such as a high density apartment building, with plenty of children, where most renters, without military training, choose to own a gun because they feel compelled to own a gun due to the society they live in.

[TheGer]

Lol it's pointless Gideon, he doesn't want to take a stance and argue what he believes, he only wants to drag other people down and pick them apart when they express there points of view(otherwise known as a Bully).  This is standard practice for those who don't have the courage of conviction, or courage of much else.

[GideonGono]

You don't see all that happening in places with lots of radical proponents of the 2nd amendment

[myrkul]

2. If, contrary to point 1 above, everyone chooses to have a weapon, then the number of injuries due to accidents, twitchy fingers and rage would likely rise.

Switzerland practices universal conscription, which requires that all able-bodied male citizens keep fully automatic firearms at home in case of a call-up. Every male between the ages of 20 and 34 is considered a candidate for conscription into the military, and following a brief period of active duty will commonly be enrolled in the militia until age or an inability to serve ends his service obligation.[44] During their enrollment in the armed forces, these men are required to keep their government-issued selective fire combat rifles and semi-automatic handguns in their homes.[45] Up until September 2007, soldiers also received 50 rounds of government-issued ammunition in a sealed box for storage at home.[46] In addition to these official weapons, Swiss citizens are allowed to purchase surplus-to-inventory combat rifles, and shooting is a popular sport in all the Swiss cantons.

Think before you speak.

Whoops, This is the country I was thinking of, not Israel.

Point still stands.

[jgraham]

Do a little brush-up on physics

Earlier I might have suggested you do a brush-up on condescension but it looks like you took care of that already.  

and try and work your way backwards to formulate a "reasonable" set of Laws for Man. Which is to say, measure every action another man makes with regards to his property and person and map that physically to how it affects another person's property (which it inevitably will intersect to some extent). If that force is measurable (tangible not ethereal) and unacceptable (not consensual) to that other person then he has reason to retaliate in a similar manner.

So are you asserting that Person A who applies a measurable force against Person B's property creates the right for Person B to apply a force equal in magnitude, duration and modality to the property of person A and no more?

Anybody could be a bigot or a racist and physically harm no one if he merely thinks the thought. If however he physically acts on his thoughts, and harms another because of those thoughts, then we have physical violence. Punish the criminal act not the criminal thought. Physics deals in objective measures. Attitudes or emotions about specific actions or persons are subjective.

I don't know what you mean by "physical violence" but if you mean "aggression" as defined in NAP.  Then no.  You can take action to oppress a community and no aggression (in the strict NAP sense has occured).

. If your entire case regarding the 'complexity' of law rests/hinges on making predictions about physical threats, I will concede that point. However, I question the prudence of anybody writing laws which would likely include preemptive force to prohibit actions not yet committed. There are one too many variables to consider, and each situation is unique, so why even try?

My case against what appears to be your argument about "complex laws are bad" is that its simply begging the question.  If the purpose of law is to approximate "true justice" then Laws are only necessarily simple if "true justice" is necessarily simple.  If true justice is complex then laws are needfully complex.  

Then provides a kind of half-definition "Laws prevent injury, enslavement, and plunder" so implying that restricting the kinds of weapons one can carry can't prevent injury.  However no argument is made as to why this might be true.  No response is given when this is highlighted.

In response to the above statement: "restricting weapons cannot prevent injury." On the contrary, the very fact you're restricting them causes injury.

At best ignoratio elenchi.  Even if we accept the somewhat tenuous idea that restricting the kinds of weapons which can be carried has the potential to cause (or perhaps "contribute in some way" is better) injury.  This does not actually negate the potential to prevent injury.

Which was the point.  

[TheGer]

Point of clarification. 

It needs to be clear when people are talking about restriction.  Are we talking restricting types of guns allowed, or restricting ownership altogether?

Just clarify when points are being made.

[jgraham]

It is obvious that you don't have a clue what real Liberty is, thus have no clue what a real Libertarian is, thus don't value Liberty at all, thus making you a sellout to Humanity.  Your blatherings therefore stem from nothing more than what is called a Peanut Gallery and should be treated as such.

Well I know I don't know what "real" liberty is.   Please elucidate.

[FredericBastiat]

Do a little brush-up on physics
Earlier I might have suggested you do a brush-up on condescension but it looks like you took care of that already.  

Don't get your panties in a bind. It was a suggestion. Stop offending yourself, it's a waste of energy.

So are you asserting that Person A who applies a measurable force against Person B's property creates the right for Person B to apply a force equal in magnitude, duration and modality to the property of person A and no more?

Approximately, yes. As an example, it might be ridiculous to kill someone if they thumbed their nose at you. The punishment wouldn't fit the crime.

I don't know what you mean by "physical violence" but if you mean "aggression" as defined in NAP.  Then no.  You can take action to oppress a community and no aggression (in the strict NAP sense has occured).

Not knowing what "physical violence" is, makes you stupid. It is equally, if not more descriptive, in the context I used it than "aggression". I define stupid as someone who knows something is a certain way, and then either acts in opposition to it (to their obvious detriment), or claims it to be something that they know it is not (a liar). Labeling you as ignorant would be nicer. Your definition of "oppress" is lacking. You need to be more precise in your usage. I'm not even going to try to guess what you might mean.

My case against what appears to be your argument about "complex laws are bad" is that its simply begging the question.  If the purpose of law is to approximate "true justice" then Laws are only necessarily simple if "true justice" is necessarily simple.  If true justice is complex then laws are needfully complex.  

You beg a lot it seems. Firstly, complexity (specifically in law) is for those who like to obscure the truth. Secondly, if you don't fall in the first group, you must be a child. That would make you innocently unaware, which you are not. The actions of humans can be diverse, and given enough ability to observe all of them with perfection, predictability improves. Sleuthing and sifting thru mounds of evidence and non-evidence is what might be construed as "complex" but that has nothing to do with law in my opinion. Again, I know lawfulness can and should be simple (it's lawlessness that isn't). It's the application of justice, or lack thereof, that may be complex due to the limitation in our abilities to interpret with exactitude what happened betwixt conflicting persons. That or we just have a mean streak in us.

At best ignoratio elenchi.  Even if we accept the somewhat tenuous idea that restricting the kinds of weapons which can be carried has the potential to cause (or perhaps "contribute in some way" is better) injury.  This does not actually negate the potential to prevent injury.

Which was the point.  

Your "point" assumes a lot. If everybody was sheep, and followed your every command, then sure, restricting what types of "weapons" one could possess could potentially have an outcome of less injury. The problem is that law is force, it isn't a suggestion. So for every person who comes into possession of a weapon, you can threaten and then apply, if necessary, injury to that individual to prevent him from keeping his "weapon". Were you effective in the enforcement of your "law" you would injure everybody who has a "weapon". In my case, many people could have weapons, and yet incur no injury, is a plausible outcome. At least my scenario has the sporting chance of producing fewer injuries than your "law". Your law's outcome (enforcement) always produces injury.

[jgraham]

Do a little brush-up on physics
Earlier I might have suggested you do a brush-up on condescension but it looks like you took care of that already.  

Don't get your panties in a bind. It was a suggestion.

You seem to have deftly missed the point.  You are taking a patronizing or superior attitude with me which makes your actions, by definition condescending.

Stop offending yourself, it's a waste of energy.

Who said I was offended?  It's a simple statement of fact.  You're giving more than a hint of social maladjustment there too.

So are you asserting that Person A who applies a measurable force against Person B's property creates the right for Person B to apply a force equal in magnitude, duration and modality to the property of person A and no more?

Approximately, yes. As an example, it might be ridiculous to kill someone if they thumbed their nose at you. The punishment wouldn't fit the crime.

That's light-years away from the idea in physics (perhaps you need to brush up?) of force being equal in magnitude, duration and modality (meaning the "kind" of force - that is some agreed upon standard which could be low-level i.e. SEWG or more high-level like Ionizing Radiation, Non-Ionizing Radiation, etc..). Punishment fitting the crime is more about one's sense of justice.  i.e. Do murderers deserve to be murdered?

I don't know what you mean by "physical violence" but if you mean "aggression" as defined in NAP.  Then no.  You can take action to oppress a community and no aggression (in the strict NAP sense has occured).

Not knowing what "physical violence" is, makes you stupid. It is equally, if not more descriptive, in the context I used it than "aggression".

Strawman Fallacy.  I didn't say I don't have an idea of what "physical violence" is I just don't know precisely what YOU mean by the idiom.  I have already been warned by YOU that I should avoid colloquial (common/informal) interpretations of your words.   So it is by your own request that this question is asked.

Secondly your statement that you provided a term that is as or more descriptive than the one I used.  Is simply false.  You referenced a general term almost entirely without context.  I referenced a term as defined by an ideology parallel to Libertarianism for which there is a fair amount of literature on. 

I define stupid as someone who knows something is a certain way, and then either acts in opposition to it (to their obvious detriment), or claims it to be something that they know it is not (a liar).

As stated your belief is based on misrepresenting my position.  Not to mention you have made no case as to how this is to my detriment.  Also I find it interesting that you find all liars stupid.   As that makes your definition internally inconsistent in a number of cases.  Bravo? 

Your definition of "oppress" is lacking. You need to be more precise in your usage. I'm not even going to try to guess what you might mean.

To crush or burden by abuse of power or authority
 

My case against what appears to be your argument about "complex laws are bad" is that its simply begging the question.  If the purpose of law is to approximate "true justice" then Laws are only necessarily simple if "true justice" is necessarily simple.  If true justice is complex then laws are needfully complex.  

You beg a lot it seems.

What does this even mean?

Firstly, complexity (specifically in law) is for those who like to obscure the truth. Secondly, if you don't fall in the first group, you must be a child. That would make you innocently unaware, which you are not. The actions of humans can be diverse, and given enough ability to observe all of them with perfection, predictability improves. Sleuthing and sifting thru mounds of evidence and non-evidence is what might be construed as "complex" but that has nothing to do with law in my opinion.

Seriously I really don't have much of an idea of what your attempting to do here. To me this appears to be a mish-mash of special definitions and/or poor logic that doesn't force a new conclusion or counter mine.   I can easily show you where these are if you like but you might also think about just restating your position some other way.

At best ignoratio elenchi.  Even if we accept the somewhat tenuous idea that restricting the kinds of weapons which can be carried has the potential to cause (or perhaps "contribute in some way" is better) injury.  This does not actually negate the potential to prevent injury.

Which was the point.  

Your "point" assumes a lot. If everybody was sheep, and followed your every command, then sure, restricting what types of "weapons" one could possess could potentially have an outcome of less injury.

Is everyone always following this law, all the time the only way it can prevent injury?  Probably not.

The problem is that law is force, it isn't a suggestion. So for every person who comes into possession of a weapon, you can threaten and then apply, if necessary, injury to that individual to prevent him from keeping his "weapon". Were you effective in the enforcement of your "law" you would injure everybody who has a "weapon".

All this appears to be saying is that if a law is completely unambiguous and enforced 100% then every lawbreaker is injured.  However you're equivocating on the word "injury" first you are using it in the sense of dealing out some degree of physical force in the second sense you are using it to mean removal of something someone possesses.  So your argument is invalid.

In my case, many people could have weapons, and yet incur no injury, is a plausible outcome.

So everyone would have restricted weapons but nobody would be injured accidentally or unjustly by them?  That is plausible how exactly?

At least my scenario has the sporting chance of producing fewer injuries than your "law". Your law's outcome (enforcement) always produces injury.

Neither premise is either forced or supported by your statements.

[FredericBastiat]

I see again, and apparently I haven't learned my lesson, that jgraham comes thru with the assumption that he doesn't know anything useful. If word-play were what I was interested in, I'd play. I gave you a chance to actually contribute something of interest, but I would be wrong on that count. I pity your wife and children (if you have either).

As a side note, I'm absolutely certain you don't "go off" on your employer like you do here in the forums, as you likely wouldn't keep your job for any more than a few minutes. So how about you put on your best "employer-face" and get off your pretend "greater-than-thou" soap box.

Condescending? Condescending?!! Look in the mirror, your excellency (vitriolically sardonic).

Of course, you'll probably won't do that. You'll accuse me of deftly avoiding your supposed "probing" and self-important "misunderstood/I dunno what you mean/huh?" line of questioning. I'm amazed at how many other people "get it" but you don't. Your self-aggrandizement is unnecessary. Everybody knows you can "rub" two words together and actually say something. However, if you can't draw any inferences, then you're worthless.

jgraham, it can easily be seen that you are one of two types of person.

1) Brilliantly ignorant or,

2) Ignorantly brilliant.

And yes, I know that's an oxymoron. Unfortunately, words can't describe the depths of queerness that you are.

[FredericBastiat]

jgraham,

Just for kicks and giggles, and knowing this will probably go sideways on me, I'll ask a few questions of my own. Notwithstanding, I don't really care at this point as I'm going after the entertainment value. Two can play at this game. Let's pretend for a moment that you just don't "understand" anything I say (or anybody else it seems) or what anything means. To wit, you're ignorantly unawares but inquisitive (I'll give you a infinitesimally small benefit of the doubt here).

Define: the words crush, burden, injury, abuse, power, authority, justice, patronizing, standard, maladjustment, offense, condescension, deserve and detriment.

Define or explain the phrases: "simple statement of fact", "light-years away from the idea", "fitting the crime", "hint of social maladjustment", "simply false", "general term", "without context", "sense of justice", "internally inconsistent", "second sense", and "superior attitude".

Oh, and by the bye, don't use any moral references as those would be entirely inappropriate. I'm not interested in your opinions regarding right or wrong, as they are groundless due to their subjectivity. I only want objective definitions. To be a little more precise, but perhaps still obscure and vague in your world, consider the following:

"In asking whether moral values are objective or subjective, we ask whether moral values are up to us or not. If they are up to us, then moral values are subjective; if they are not up to us, then moral values are objective."

Knock yourself out. You can take that any way you like colloquially speaking.

[jgraham]

I see again, and apparently I haven't learned my lesson, that jgraham comes thru with the assumption that he doesn't know anything useful.

So now you're the person who gets to say what is and is not useful?

I'm guessing here, but I expect that whatever the issue is it's the result of you using specialized definitions - to the point of complaining multiple times about my use of common definitions, refusing to define your terms and then somehow using that to justify complaining about the conversation not getting very far down the path you want it to go.

If word-play were what I was interested in, I'd play.

See you make this accusation a lot but you don't really seem to have anything to back it up.  You change the word you accuse me of (sometimes being apparently contradictory).  Can you point me to some evidence that all I'm interested in is word play.  Perhaps what you're seeing is that I don't let many of your slights pass unscrutinized?  You do have this habit of making ad hominem attacks in a post and criticism will usually be taken as a sign you are willing to talk about something.

Not to mention you could very easily pin that label on you.  Aren't you the one who admits to using uncommon definitions for terms?  Haven't you used a single term in two different places in the same argument and treated it as if it was the same term?  

I gave you a chance to actually contribute something of interest,

Oh hey, that's not condescending.

but I would be wrong on that count. I pity your wife and children (if you have either).

They say: "Thanks".

As a side note, I'm absolutely certain you don't "go off" on your employer like you do here in the forums, as you likely wouldn't keep your job for any more than a few minutes.

Again I have to guess what you mean here.  "Go off" on someone to me means to get angry or rage at.  I really don't think I'm angry.  To me the only things I am quietly insisting on is that your definitions are reasonably clear to me, that your arguments force a conclusion reasonably well and that your premises are well supported.  Perhaps the great-organizing-principle-of-the-universe smiled upon me when giving me a job where that is valued.  If your job requires the antithesis of that then I wish you luck.

So how about you put on your best "employer-face" and get off your pretend "greater-than-thou" soap box.

So how exactly am I acting "greater-than-thou"?  As opposed to say someone who believes they get to say what is or is not useful or that everyone should automatically know their definitions?  Just sayin...

Condescending? Condescending?!! Look in the mirror, your excellency (vitriolically sardonic).

Where am I assuming greater knowledge than you?  You on the other hand did assume that I had less knowledge than you in Physics.

Of course, you'll probably won't do that.

If you cite the portion of text and make your argument I'll try to be as objective as possible.

You'll accuse me of deftly avoiding your supposed "probing" and self-important "misunderstood/I dunno what you mean/huh?" line of questioning.

Did I accuse you of avoiding the point?  I did accuse you of missing it.  What is self-important about admitting one's ignorance?  Where I am we consider that the opposite.

I'm amazed at how many other people "get it" but you don't.

Using the sample of arguments you've given me as a basis, and the appearance that you think there's something wrong with defining terms.  I wonder how confident you can actually be that other people "get it".  In software development you really get to see how badly people communicate, that is how frequently two people meet, talk for a few hours and go away with completely different ideas as to what was agreed on.  It's one of the reasons that people use agile methodologies.

In any case, why the amazement?  Since when is some people agreeing with you intrinsically the sign of a good idea or a lot of people agreeing with you for that matter?

Your self-aggrandizement is unnecessary.

So to you putting aside my own definitions of things (when you said they weren't correct), and using your definitions is somehow self-aggrandizing? How does that work?

However, if you can't draw any inferences, then you're worthless.

I'd argue that you haven't given me much to draw inferences from.  Just some definitions and arguments that don't stand up to casual scrutiny.

Define: the words crush, burden, injury, abuse, power, authority, justice, patronizing, standard, maladjustment, offense, condescension, deserve and detriment.

Define or explain the phrases: "simple statement of fact", "light-years away from the idea", "fitting the crime", "hint of social maladjustment", "simply false", "general term", "without context", "sense of justice", "internally inconsistent", "second sense", and "superior attitude".

Tell you what, if you are legitimately confused about what I mean, you can cite the passage where I use that term and add some text like "what do you mean by X here?" and I'll do my best to define the terms in context to your satisfaction.

Oh, and by the bye, don't use any moral references as those would be entirely inappropriate. I'm not interested in your opinions regarding right or wrong, as they are groundless due to their subjectivity. I only want objective definitions. To be a little more precise, but perhaps still obscure and vague in your world, consider the following:

I'm guessing that when I pointed out that when I restated what you appeared to be talking about with regard to physics you didn't like me pointing out that your example was not an example of what I was talking about.  It's not a question of Justice (which is the term I used) being 'inappropriate' in a definition but that what I was talking about (and I assume what you were speaking of ) was about how some undesired consequence happened to person or property.  That is I was comparing methods, you were comparing outcomes.  I think it's pretty clear that these are different things.