Where do we draw the line?

[georg jetson]

Hey, Stealthy, SVG, Georg,

Did you guys notice the power in that Elisha Williams quote? I didn't when I first read it. It only sank in this evening.

It's about recognizing and acknowledging reality. We are born for one reason, because our parents mated. We belong to them until we can take care of ourselves. Once we assume full responsibility for ourselves, we belong to no one. Part of that responsibility is self preservation.

 

[georg jetson]

It is very intriguing and powerful. In essence a description of men in their natural state as individuals in a society.We don't need state apparatus to decide having intercourse with an 8 year old is wrong. Its in our nature to preserve others and ourselves.

Ive made this very argument before and received much grief. You've presented it a bit more eloquent. Thank you.

 

[georg jetson]

Sorry to contradict again. But societal norms have been touted on this forum. I could not read the entire story, too disgusting. Kenya, Yemen, are there more societies that hold a differing set of norms from "ours?" (Western morals?)

http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/masswedding.asp

Anyway, there is a call in Yemen that may be gaining momentum that the state outlaw this barbaric societal norm.

The line is drawn anew...sometimes...for good or bad.

I'd like to respond to this but I fear it would take us too far off topic.

 

[solus]

Sorry to contradict again. But societal norms have been touted on this forum. I could not read the entire story, too disgusting. Kenya, Yemen, are there more societies that hold a differing set of norms from "ours?" (Western morals?)
snipp.../QUOTE]

why must 'ours' (western morals) be imposed on anyone?

kinda selfish to wish our moral on anybody...also what certain religious groups have done from their beginning...

it has worked so well over all these years hasn't it (sarcasm)!!

ipse

 

[utbagpiper]

Incorrect (technically, just to put a little twist on the dagger) and misleading. What do you think absurdum means, dude? You think it means "reasonable"?

Still picking nits I see.

Also, what do you think is the difference between being " technically" and "materially" correct?

Materially correct: Nobody golfs on the moon.

Technically correct: Actually, Alan Shepard took a golf club with him on Apollo 14 and hit a few balls.

You are clearly well enough read and intelligent enough to know these things. And so you are simply attempting to drag out a personality disagreement while trying to make it look otherwise. Quit being petty.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

This post can basically be summarized as "better to lie and get your way than tell the truth and not"

If the theory is solid but you want to hide it under the rug, fine, whatever dude.

If the theory isn't solid then make a logical argument showing a flaw.

But don't reduce yourself to lying just to desperately convince other people to let you keep your guns...

This post can be summarized as a personal attack on my integrity. Apparently such attacks are considered less insulting than being called the tail end of a beast of burden.

30 posts ago I made the same rational argument against WMDs in private hands that Citizen later quoted from Rothsbard. Take your argument up with Citizen where you can either see how quickly you can agree, or you can disagree without feeling the need to call him a liar.

 

[utbagpiper]

Bagpiper, I do not care that you're anti-anarchist (a fun double negative of sorts, essentially meaning pro-ruler). You constantly try to speak for other members. You've tried to speak for at least two other members in this very thread, and in the case of speaking for me you grossly misrepresented my views and thoughts. I was not even arguing one position over another! Yet you jump in and start trying to speak for me, then attack a position I never held. I think that is my primary complaint with you.

Sounds like a personal issue more appropriate to PM than to derail threads.

 

[utbagpiper]

We don't need state apparatus to decide having intercourse with an 8 year old is wrong. Its in our nature to preserve others and ourselves.

Hogwash. What an utterly lazy and thoughtless way to try to dismiss the need for "someone to decide" what is appropriate. Even within our own Western European, Judeo-Christian dominated culture, age of consent has traditionally been much lower than any respectable person is going to suggest would be appropriate today. To whit:

Jewish law has held that a "woman" was eligible for marriage at 12 years and 6 months. To stave off the fully expected attempt to shift the discussion by demanding "cites", this link indicates minimum marriage age for Jewish girls is simply 12 years.

A Hispanic girl was long considered eligible for marriage at 15 years of age, whence derives the name of quinceanera celebration. (You can google this one yourself.)

Outside of and predating this culture, things were even worse.

Pederasty among the Classics and Asians routinely included boys as young as 12. From the Wiki page on the subject we can read the following description: "Some modern observers restrict the age of the younger partner to "generally between twelve and seventeen", though historically the spread was somewhat greater. The younger partner must ... not be fully mature;...in Japan the younger member ranged in age from 11 to about 19..."

That "not fully mature" part is crucial to predators. Always has been. Always will be.

During the period when such was commonly practiced, some cities prohibited sexual intercourse between the boy and the man, others permitted it. So nobody gets to claim that somehow government was mandating this sick practice.

Today, in this nation, we have groups such as NAMBLA and others (google "sex before 8 or it's too late") who openly advocate for legalized pedophilia and pederasty.

You do NOT get to claim that somehow this isn't a result of a state of nature.

In a state of nature we take care of our ourselves, perhaps those we love or need. Everyone else may readily be viewed as entirely exploitable.

In the dark and dirty world of child exploitation, there is no shortage of "parents" (unworthy to be called such) who are more than happy to exploit their own children either for drug money, or for access to someone else's children. Indeed, there are those who make babies for the singular purpose of having the necessary currency to access other children.

Nor should you demean yourself by somehow claiming that there is any material difference between the "8 year old" I used as the example and the youngest age (11 years) I've documented here as being socially accepted. Not unless you want to try to defend that we should lift legal bans on 40 year olds having sexual relations with 8, 11, 12 or even 15 year olds.

Short of some individualized test that everyone has to take to be granted age-of-majority rights (and how does that concept gel with your other ideals), "someone gets to decide" what age of consent is going to be. At what age are we going to presume that a person is mature enough to freely consent to sexual activity with adults, rather than being too immature to make an informed decision on such matters? 17, or 18, or even 16 are entirely arbitrary ages in most respects. But practically, some age has to be set, a line has to be drawn.

Flippant and off handed claims about these things not being a problem in a state of nature are beyond laughable, the are downright disgusting and entirely indefensible. In a state of nature the weak fall prey to the strong, and children will always be weaker than adolescents and adults. Adolescents with budding physical desires outpacing their mental and emotional abilities will be easily exploited by the fully mature.

If you think pedophilia and pederasty are ok, make your case for that. But don't try to hide behind some joke of a claim about the virtues of state of nature.

Nature hasn't been the idyllic garden of eden for a very long time.

And just to bring this back on topic, in a "state of nature", some disaffected soul decides he'd like to take a few folks with him as he ends his own miserable life. As is, today, we have nut jobs taking guns into schools, churches, and military cafeterias. With a sidearm of our own, we have a reasonable chance at defense. What do we do when that same nutcase sits in his van with his perfectly legal nuke and pushes the button?

Stop being such a slave to your theories that you're forced to defend the indefensible.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

It's about recognizing and acknowledging reality. We are born for one reason, because our parents mated. We belong to them until we can take care of ourselves.

Oh, So your theories leads to the conclusion that children are merely property of their parents?

So if the parents want to abuse or even kill their children, is that a private matter of parents treating property as they see fit?

 

[utbagpiper]

Sorry to contradict again. But societal norms have been touted on this forum. I could not read the entire story, too disgusting. Kenya, Yemen, are there more societies that hold a differing set of norms from "ours?" (Western morals?)

....

The line is drawn anew...sometimes...for good or bad.

+1.

There is nothing magical about a "state of nature" protecting anyone's rights. The strong do as they like, the weak suffer.

Lines can be drawn very badly. But they can also be drawn fairly well in most cases. Not drawing any lines at all, having no mechanism to draw lines, is as bad or worse when lines get drawn badly.

 

[carolina guy]

The first mistake one can make is arguing in the first place.

Rights don't need to be argued or justified. That is why they're called rights. The justifications and arguments were figured out long, long ago. And, paid for in blood.

From there it is just a matter of conversational tactics. With a capital T.

You take the initiative by asking questions. You make him defend his position by answering or responding to your attacks.

"Oh? You don't think a human life is worth defending in the moment of the criminal attack? Then how do you justify police, and the justice system?"

+1

There is only one true right and it can be summed up either in the positive "Do no harm" or negative "Do not steal". All else derives from that. So to answer the original question, yes, if someone wants, can find or build a nuke, then yes they can. Can they use it to initiate violence, NO.

 

[carolina guy]

I will hope that WalkingWolf will come along and give you his most articulate and succinct explanation of why the 2A doesn't cover nukes, chemicals, biologicals, nor other WMDs. It boils down to this, if I recall from the last time I read his illustrative comments on the subject:

There is no way that you can bear (use) WMDs against government oppression (nor otherwise) without many innocent persons suffering the effects as well as your intended (and legally/morally justified) target.

What also makes it obvious is the history that provides original intent of the 2A. It was common for colonial and post ratification members of American society to own swords, firearms, cannon, even armed ships of war. But it was unheard of for anyone to keep the WMDs of their day.

What? You are unfamiliar with true WMDs of the 18th century? They had been used from time to time for a thousand years.

They were the rotting corpses of dead animals, and even humans that were catapulted into fortified cities under siege. So much the better if the deceased persons were known to have died of something like black plague or small pox. Some have alleged the US government handed out blankets infected with small pox to some American Indians in a deliberate move to infect and kill them (though others claim any such use of dirty blankets was a matter of ignorance rather than malice in a day before germ theory was mature).

Public health laws including quarantines were common in the ratification period. To the extent that the risk to public health from diseased or dead animals and ill or deceased persons (and their personal effects) was understood, laws were in place to prevent spreading illnesses. And such laws were, so far as I can tell, never challenged on a supposed right to keep WMDs.

Individuals owned weapons bearable by individuals (along with ownership of crew served weapons like cannon and ships). Local militias owned and manned crew served weapons. Neither individuals nor local militias presumed to maintain the 18th century version of biological WMDs.

If the 2A (and the rest of the constitution) is not read as per original intent, then it can be read in any way one desires, including as gun haters would like to read it as only protecting a "right" for States to keep national guards.

Whether government has any business owning WMDs is another discussion on which I will simply say that since some governments will have them and will be prone to use them for evil purposes, it might be prudent for good governments to maintain enough to act as a deterrent. MAD was a crazy strategy...except for working.

Charles

Cannons were and are still considered WMD...they are not necessarily (but could be) biological. You seem to be stretching the definition to fit your conclusion.

 

[carolina guy]

I understand the moderation. Yet keeping and bearing arms as enumerated in the 2A was for a very specific purpose. Common law already covered the right to keep and bear arms for self defense.If one were to simply read any documents from any of the ratifying conventions it says about the same I did.

+1 Furthermore, there was not and should not be any distinction given to the employment status of an individual who is violating your rights.

 

[carolina guy]

Exactly. There is no way that an individual can target an attacker, and only the attacker with WMDs. His deployment of the weapon will, in almost every single case, result in large numbers of innocent persons being injured and killed.

An individual cannot "bear WMDs" against attackers in any practical way that doesn't grossly violate the rights of lots of innocents.

Additionally, as since9 points out, the risks posed by a WMD so grossly outweigh any benefit that an individual may conceivable derive from the possession of such WMD as to place personal possession of WMDs outside an individual right. It moves into the realm of presuming to ignore traffic signals or driving on the wrong side of the road. Such conduct denies others their rights.

A gun, any "firearm" up to an including the 16" big guns on a WWII-era battle ship, a Tommy gun, or even a modern mini-gun or anti-tank 20mm machine gun can be left entirely unattended and pose no threat to anyone. Only when loaded and fired do firearms pose a risk to anyone (short of using them as badly shaped bludgeons). Great-great-great-great grand-daddy's muzzle loader from the War of 1812 left hanging above the mantle for the last 200 years poses nary a risk to anyone even it had power and a ball left in it. Spontaneous ignition is all but unheard of. And should a loaded firearm somehow spontaneously discharge, it poses a rather limited risk to society. Left entirely unattended, a house can rot around the gun, which can rust and decay back into mother earth with virtually zero chance of ever harming anyone.

Not so with most WMDs. Fail to maintain a nuclear device and eventually you're going to have some rather nasty nuclear material being unshielded and released into the atmosphere. Where exactly does one presume to take out a 10,000 year insurance policy for making a small city uninhabitable when Uncle Gomez's nuke buried in the back yard is detonated even just has its core exposed by an excavator in 50 years after Gomez is gone and everyone has forgotten about his personal WMD? Chemical and Biological weapons are probably even more dangerous from this perspective. My neighboring county was home to the largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the nation, dating to WWI (Google "Tooele Chemical Demilitarization Facility"). Even in our dry climate, shells stored in bunkers had corroded and were dangerously closing to releasing Mustard Gas, Sarin, and other nasty stuff into the atmosphere.

Whether governments have any legitimate "right" or power to manufacture and control WMDs--and if so, whence that power derives--is a different and potentially interesting discussion.

Charles

Aside from the obvious dodging the actual definition of WMD, if you do not "maintain" a nuke, it will eventually be incapable of being used AS a nuke -- it will NOT detonate. But, if you are going to mention all the pollution that results from the manufacture, storage and potential usage of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, then why does the government (any of them) get a pass on this? The US government has polluted numerous sites in the US for generations to come with careless handling and disposal.

So, essentially, you are saying that not a SINGLE person can ever be trusted with such devices, true?

But, somehow, a group of individuals (and usually not the "best" individuals that a society has to offer) working together are SOMEHOW magically going to be MORE responsible than any of those SINGLE individuals that you do not trust? Do you have even a single example where this has worked in reality?

 

[carolina guy]

I think you too frequently seize upon a turn-of-the-phrase to make an offender over naught. In such discussion one might just as well write "I believe evidence suggests such activity creates an infringement to others' rights....." as to write "I'd not want to see...".

We all get it. Individual opinions and even super-majority decisions matter not a bit to anarchists who like to think themselves islands unaffected by and not affecting any around them except through mutually voluntary interactions. It's a nice theory. Here in the real world, WMDs aren't real good at recognizing where your property ends and you're neighbor's property, life, and liberty begin. So dealing with reality rather than anarchists theories....



True enough. But neither does it follow that in every case the extreme is the correct answer.

Appeal to extreme or reducto ad absurdum is a logical fallacy. Those who suggest that the 2A either covers WMDs, or doesn't cover any modern weapons at all are either being very ignorant, or deliberately deceptive. Ditto those (usually supporters of the 2A) who misuse slippery slope to suggest that if we concede on Nukes we are in grave danger of having to give up our sporters/militia-style firearms or self-defense handguns.

Charles

So...using the "where your property ends" theory, nobody should be able to use anything other than clubs because even knives can be thrown and may miss the target that is ONLY upon your property. You are using the same logical fallacy, IMO.

 

[carolina guy]

If the key here is risk imposed, then we should probably consider that the line we're drawing, logically, must extend well beyond the realm of weaponry. From nuclear power generation to swimming pools, the world is full of risks.

It should also be noted that the risk imposed by possessing and the risk imposed by using a particular type of weaponry may be materially different, and thus, if the key is the risk imposed, the two may need to be prohibited or not separately.

There are easily imaginable scenarios where a person qualified to store nuclear weaponry safely may be able to do so without imposing significant risk on another. If risk imposed is the key factor, then risk imposed would probably not be able to justify blanket prohibitions on the storage of nuclear weaponry. (You might say that, since we can conclude that, in one case, prohibition would not be justified with the given criteria, we may conclude that the contradiction that it may always be justified with the given criteria must be false)

Careful now, if we are to consider that the character of the person possessing is to be factored into the risk calculation, which is perhaps a legitimate consideration, we must tread very carefully, and think long and hard before attempting to draw conclusions. It would be vital to get the method correct, as an improper method could very easily be abused, and in fact, is today.

Whether or not we can justify blanket prohibitions, of course, doesn't change that it may still be in the world's interest to pursue nuclear disarmament.

I think that the nuclear weapon "attack" on personal rights needs to be ignored. If a person has either the money or the resources to mine, refine, AND manufacture a nuclear device they likely have the ability and desire to store it properly. This is a red herring argument, IMO.

 

[carolina guy]

Men who live in the real world recognize that at some point, the opinions of others do matter. If 200 million of our fellow citizens want to outlaw OC, odds are good that attempting to OC is going to bring unpleasant penalties. In the extreme case, I expect that 200 million fellow citizens could revoke the 2nd amendment, stack the courts, and do whatever they wanted to legally. And our screaming about "natural rights" won't matter a bit. Might will make right. Even if a man is absolutely correct, being a jerk about it may be a very bad long-term strategy.

If something is WRONG for one person to do to another, it is still equally WRONG if 200 million want to do it to one person. Period.

 

[utbagpiper]

If something is WRONG for one person to do to another, it is still equally WRONG if 200 million want to do it to one person. Period.

That may be true. Or maybe, just maybe, simple examples of one man defending against another don't quite work when speaking of nations. Certainly, we can believe that even the most necessary of war will require certain immoral actions. Yet require them it does. No soldier in war can be expected to individually determine which soldiers from the other side actually pose an imminent, immediate risk to him. Those in the enemy's uniform are to be eliminated, period.

Or, let's look at this another way. For sake of argument, let's say you're right and it IS immoral and a violation of natural rights for nation states to build, maintain, threaten, and use WMDs.

Great. So do 2 wrongs or 200 million wrongs make a right?

If we accept that it is immoral for the USA to maintain Nukes, Chemical Weapons, Biological Weapons, or some other WMD, will that immoral conduct be lessoned if 2 dozen private wing nuts emulate the immoral conduct by keeping WMDs of their own?

I, Citizen, and Citizen's Rothbard's quote have made clear that WMDs cannot morally be used against an assailant because WMDs cannot be targeted against the assailant(s) solely, but will necessarily infringe the rights of others. No moral case can be made for private ownership of WMDs. That leaves only a case of "if the government gets to do it, so do I" which is a "2 wrongs make a right" kind of argument which is not going to be acceptable to any moral man, I trust.

Hence, we're right back to no moral argument supporting private ownership of WMDs.

If you'd like to argue that the government should eliminate nuclear and other WMDs from its inventory, you have a fairly good moral and principled argument to make.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

Cannons were and are still considered WMD...they are not necessarily (but could be) biological. You seem to be stretching the definition to fit your conclusion.

I will leave it to WalkingWolf, Citizen, and Citizen's invocation of Rothbard to debate the point further if they wish. Citizen and Grapeshot have discussed well the clear difference between powerful weapons like cannons that can be targeted only at aggressors, and WMDs that cannot be targeted. No benefit to me rehashing it again. Come up to the speed on the rest of the thread and the arguments put forth by those with whom there are not personality issues.

 

[utbagpiper]

If the key here is risk imposed, then we should probably consider that the line we're drawing, logically, must extend well beyond the realm of weaponry. From nuclear power generation to swimming pools, the world is full of risks.

1: reducto ad absubdum to compare the risk of WMDs in a garage to the risks of a backyard swimming pool.

2: risks are properly weighed against benefits. The risks and benefits of swimming pools and nuclear power generation are well known among intelligent men. Ditto the risks and benefits (personal and macro) of private gun ownership.

What exactly are the benefits to either you individually or to society as a whole from your keeping of WMDs vs what risks are posed to society as a whole by your conduct. I will refer you back to other threads where Marshaull has explained why at some point, risk of harm becomes a harm itself with the example of an individual choosing to drive on the wrong side of the street. We don't have to wait for him to have a head on with an innocent victim before he is stopped, cited, and punished.

There are easily imaginable scenarios where a person qualified to store nuclear weaponry safely may be able to do so without imposing significant risk on another.

Then you have a very active imagination. The whole of the US government with multiple safety protocols, interlocks, and controls, and multiple persons required to launch/detonate a nuke has come perilously close to "unintended discharges" of nukes on several documented occasions, and several others well less documented. The Soviets likewise. The whole of the US government with its resources, came dangerous close to allowing some of the nastiest chemicals ever created leak into the atmosphere some 50 miles upwind of my home, before finally mustering the resources to properly and permanently dispose of such chemicals. We have read recently of government labs sending Anthrax samples out by mistake.

Does you imagination of a private individual being qualified and able to store and maintain WMDs safely actually go much beyond "the market will handle that"?

You have a much stronger case for the immorality of governments maintaining WMDs than you do for the supposed "right" of private individuals to keep a nuke or biological weapon around "just in case."

Charles