Exactly
Mike Denny
Mike Dilger wrote:
Instead of spending our time arguing about nukes,
This isn't about nukes, it's about gun control and anarchy.
If an LP candidate finds themselves in a public forum and they take the position that there should be no limits on weapons with only the arguments presented so far in their defense, do you think most reasonable people will take them seriously? If not, then I think you'll agree that this is an important issue and worth giving some thought to.
-- Steve
Steve - you know, It sounds like you already have your
mind made up on this nuke/gun issue. After we
discussed this topic again on Weds, I went back
through my emails from the initial thread you started
a month ago. I noticed several others had responded to
you with quite a few thoughtful explanations. I also
noticed you were quite selective on the ones you
decided to respond to....?
For instance, you still haven't explained how taking
away someone's right to possess 'X' is going to gain
you or anyone else any real security. Maybe it helps
some manage their hollywood-fueled paranoia, I
dunno...
By the way, are you sure this argument isn't really
about pre-emptive force? i.e. the rights of an
individual/gov't to bust in and destroy your nuke
whether you have a right to it or not? That's the
usual counter-LP argument that hasn't ended yet.
cheers..david
--- Steve Dekorte <steve@...> wrote:
David Rhodes wrote:
For instance, you still haven't explained how taking
away someone's right to possess 'X' is going to gain
you or anyone else any real security.
If X is, say, a button that when pressed, would destroy the world, in which of the following two hypothetical situations would you be safer?
1) everyone has one
2) no one has one
By the way, are you sure this argument isn't really
about pre-emptive force?
i.e. the rights of an
individual/gov't to bust in and destroy your nuke
whether you have a right to it or not? That's the
usual counter-LP argument that hasn't ended yet.
cheers.
I'm not sure what you're saying.
-- Steve
I don't see how such riddles resolve the original
question. The question was - 'should individuals have
the *right* to possess nukes'.
In fact, this new question you pose now is the same
type of language politicians use when they propose to
take more of our rights away.
As in - if it's suddenly against the law, therefore no
one will do it and we will all be safe.
To answer your question directly though - once I have
knowledge of such buttons, I will subjectively assess
their level of threat to my person and act
accordingly. I may even consider acts of pre-emptive
force, but I am confident I won't be taking away
anyone's right to property or right to bear arms.
--- Steve Dekorte <steve@...> wrote:
How are those compatible? Presumably(if not, please clarify) you're taking away someone's weapon (they're destroy the world button) by force. How is this not interfering with their "right to bear arms" if you believe such a right has no limits?
-- Steve
Steve - meant to discuss this more at the picnic
yesterday, but had trouble finding it... my notes
below.
Also, I think we should take this thread offline at
this point though, unless others are interested.
--- Steve Dekorte <steve@...> wrote:
> I may even consider acts of pre-emptive
> force, but I am confident I won't be taking away
> anyone's right to property or right to bear arms.How are those compatible? Presumably(if not, please
clarify) you're
taking away someone's weapon (they're destroy the
world button) by
force. How is this not interfering with their "right
to bear arms" if
you believe such a right has no limits?
- taking away 'the button' is not the same as taking
away a right. If a thief steals your wallet, have you
lost the right to carry money?
-I didn't take everyone's buttons away, just yours
because you threatened me. (Or maybe I decided to
leave the button and take your life instead.)
so yes, I am violating your right to property but I've
made a subjective and utilitarian decision to do so
and should fully expect the consequences of that -
just as GW should for his in Iraq. I agree it's
immoral but still rational.
Of course I personally disagree with your view that
mere possession of a particular arrangement of certain
atoms be automatically considered an imminent threat.
This basically proves the subjectivity of a situation
and why I think this is really a pre-emptive force
argument.
20yrs from now it is very possible that a fusion
reactor could be built, capable of blowing up any type
of atom, not just the rare heavy ones. I remember
hearing somewhere that if you could liberate all of
the energy in a paper bag, it would level San
Francisco. What then?
But the good thing is - a research facility could
still test plutonium processing and be within their
rights. On the flip side, if you decided to lead a mob
to bust down your neighbors door to deactivate his/her
button then that's your call. It's worth a night in
jail I suppose, but who is John Galt?
This is silly.
I would prefer that no one had one. I would also prefer that no one had guns, knives, cyanide, arsenic, or violent tendencies.[1] Yet these things exist. My wish that no one had one is irrelevant, and passing a law that says no one may have one is just a government wish. We can outlaw guns, drugs, or gravity, and yet they will persist.
~Chris
[1] I am exaggerating. I am familiar with the arguments that guns are actually a good thing for peacekeeping, levelling the playing-field, etc.
Your simile assumes the things needed to make our hypothetical button are common. This isn't the case with nuclear weapons.
-- Steve