Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[AyeYo]

Guns are not an issue.

Of course they are. You complain that you could be killed by a nuclear bomb yet guns can kill you just the same.

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.

[Hawker]

Guns are not an issue.

Of course they are. You complain that you could be killed by a nuclear bomb yet guns can kill you just the same. Like I said, you're not being logically consistent. I'm done arguing with you about this though. I've made my point. Let me know if you have anything new to add.

Facts:

Fact: Somalia has free access to guns.

Fact: The population of Somalia will double over the next generation as it has done over the last generation.

Guns are not an issue.  Nukes and smallpox are.  I don't care if you have a million pistols.  I cannot accept you having 1 nuke or 1 smallpox vial.  Even it you are 100 miles away, I have to defend myself from the nuke or the germs.

Is there anything there you disagree with?

[NghtRppr]

Guns are not an issue.

Of course they are. You complain that you could be killed by a nuclear bomb yet guns can kill you just the same. Like I said, you're not being logically consistent. I'm done arguing with you about this though. I've made my point. Let me know if you have anything new to add.

Facts:

Fact: Somalia has free access to guns.

Fact: The population of Somalia will double over the next generation as it has done over the last generation.

Guns are not an issue.  Nukes and smallpox are.  I don't care if you have a million pistols.  I cannot accept you having 1 nuke or 1 smallpox vial.  Even it you are 100 miles away, I have to defend myself from the nuke or the germs.

Is there anything there you disagree with?

argumentum ad nauseam

[Hawker]

Guns are not an issue.

Of course they are. You complain that you could be killed by a nuclear bomb yet guns can kill you just the same. Like I said, you're not being logically consistent. I'm done arguing with you about this though. I've made my point. Let me know if you have anything new to add.

Facts:

Fact: Somalia has free access to guns.

Fact: The population of Somalia will double over the next generation as it has done over the last generation.

Guns are not an issue.  Nukes and smallpox are.  I don't care if you have a million pistols.  I cannot accept you having 1 nuke or 1 smallpox vial.  Even it you are 100 miles away, I have to defend myself from the nuke or the germs.

Is there anything there you disagree with?

argumentum ad nauseam

So you can't offer a rational argument.

That's fine.  Your position is that we have to wait at home and die of radiation sickness.  Mine is not.  More luck to you persuading people that your position is right.

[FredericBastiat]

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?

[Hawker]

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?

You can't use a nuke to commit suicide without harming your neighbours.  Suicide is normal (11 per 100k people per year) so if everyone has nukes there will be that many who are likely to use a nuke.  Even if you live in a tiny town of 100,000 people, that means a risk of  11 nukes per year.

So yes, wanting possession of a nuke means you have to be stopped.  Once you have possession, then the damage is done.  Either you kill your neighbours or you don't - its your call once you have a nuke as you cannot be stopped.

[BitterTea]

So yes, wanting possession of a nuke means you have to be stopped.  Once you have possession, then the damage is done.  Either you kill your neighbours or you don't - its your call once you have a nuke as you cannot be stopped.

Better get to stopping those states which own nukes, then.

[FirstAscent]

Is possession of a nuke 'intent equivalent' to the threatening act of pointing a gun at another person?

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.

[FredericBastiat]

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.

[FirstAscent]

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.

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.

[NghtRppr]

Is possession of a nuke 'intent equivalent' to the threatening act of pointing a gun at another person?

No, of course not. Anyone that says otherwise is torturing the language. I've already given a list of reasons to own a nuke other than to use outside of self-defense.

[Hawker]

Is possession of a nuke 'intent equivalent' to the threatening act of pointing a gun at another person?

No, of course not. Anyone that says otherwise is torturing the language. I've already given a list of reasons to own a nuke other than to use outside of self-defense.

Your reasons are not as important as the right of people to defend their lives and property.

[fergalish]

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...

[Hawker]

So yes, wanting possession of a nuke means you have to be stopped.  Once you have possession, then the damage is done.  Either you kill your neighbours or you don't - its your call once you have a nuke as you cannot be stopped.

Better get to stopping those states which own nukes, then.

That's why we have a Non Proliferation Treaty.  Its working well; the number of nukes is falling and those that remain are kept under secure storage whereby there is never one guy able to detonate one and accidental detonations are impossible.

[fergalish]

The infrastructure didn't exist until it did, of course; same as the government, motivation and the history behind all of it. What's to say in a "Libertopia" a similar scenario or provision couldn't come about?

It may well come about, but the problem is you advocate a person's liberty above all else - and that's liberty for everyone, including the crackpots.  Your suggestion would probably prevent nukes getting into my hands, and your hands and Hawker's hands - we might go to WalMart, you know, for groceries and a nuke, and they'd say "Oh, Mr. X said I couldn't sell nukes" and we'd go "Aww, shucks, I really just wanted to spend my life's savings so as to send one into the sun, you know, just for kicks" and that'd be the end of that.  (caveat: I still haven't understood who, exactly, would fulfil the role of Mr X).

And, you know, in a certain sense, you probably wouldn't even need the regulations for the likes of us.  We'd be self-regulating.  Damn, I sure don't want a nuclear weapon in my back yard, how about you?

But the crackpots might be a little more determined.  They might travel far and wide.  Just in the hope of winning out, they might be willing to meet with unsavoury people in unsavoury places - you know, the kind of places where children slave under the watchful eye of an armed guard to mine the right ore.  The regulation exists for the crackpots.

Now you might well convince the whole world that libertarianism would be a good thing, and the whole world might well convert.  But just one crackpot, with one nuke, in one city, and the whole world will string you up on its way to the polls to elect a new government, and all your noble ideas will end up as vulture shit.  You might stop some crackpots, or even most, but you'll never stop them all.

[Hawker]

The infrastructure didn't exist until it did, of course; same as the government, motivation and the history behind all of it. What's to say in a "Libertopia" a similar scenario or provision couldn't come about?

It may well come about, but the problem is you advocate a person's liberty above all else - and that's liberty for everyone, including the crackpots.  Your suggestion would probably prevent nukes getting into my hands, and your hands and Hawker's hands - we might go to WalMart, you know, for groceries and a nuke, and they'd say "Oh, Mr. X said I couldn't sell nukes" and we'd go "Aww, shucks, I really just wanted to spend my life's savings so as to send one into the sun, you know, just for kicks" and that'd be the end of that.  (caveat: I still haven't understood who, exactly, would fulfil the role of Mr X).

And, you know, in a certain sense, you probably wouldn't even need the regulations for the likes of us.  We'd be self-regulating.  Damn, I sure don't want a nuclear weapon in my back yard, how about you?

But the crackpots might be a little more determined.  They might travel far and wide.  Just in the hope of winning out, they might be willing to meet with unsavoury people in unsavoury places - you know, the kind of places where children slave under the watchful eye of an armed guard to mine the right ore.  The regulation exists for the crackpots.

Now you might well convince the whole world that libertarianism would be a good thing, and the whole world might well convert.  But just one crackpot, with one nuke, in one city, and the whole world will string you up on its way to the polls to elect a new government, and all your noble ideas will end up as vulture shit.  You might stop some crackpots, or even most, but you'll never stop them all.

Exactly.  The thing is, Fred and B2C don't care about the consequences.   They believe that even if all humanity is wiped out, human rights will live on without us.  

...snip...

Even if the world ends up as a nuclear wasteland, I would choose that over violating a single person's rights.

See what I mean? 

[AyeYo]

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,

It has nothing to do with measuring intent and everything to do with measuring the damage/danger potential of the regulated item.

99.999% of people have no ill intent in owning a lion, but there are damn good reasons for not allowing it in a suburban neighborhood.

[AyeYo]

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!

[FredericBastiat]

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?

[FredericBastiat]

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.