Krogenar, I think I made a point earlier (which you didn't bring up here) which is that an individual's property ownership in no way infringes upon your rights, it is only an action which does so.
I'm saddened now because this is evidence that even the OP isn't actually reading the replies. I will be honest and say, I did not read all of them either, because some of them were just TL;DR replies, or flaming, etc. -- but I always read yours KBL -- and I read them carefully, because you deserved that. Just one post above, I stated:
Then you backed off (somewhat) on the statement stating that you didn't think it was likely or economically feasible for men (all men) to own a nuclear weapon. The point of the question of whether all men should be allowed to own a nuke is to test the theory of whether self-defense rights should be subject to any sort of limitation. You made a statement that the mere owning of a weapon does not infringe upon another person's rights, and so therefore it should be allowed.
I try very hard to be a serious, careful thinker. I wouldn't misrepresent your beliefs -- that's dirty pool.
As such, I strongly believe that people should be free to protect themselves in the way that they see fit. Why do you trust a giant group of insane individuals in control of these weapons over one insane individual who would need a gigantic amount of resources to own one? The ability of an individual person to obtain a nuclear weapon is important here, because it requires an absurd amount of resources for an individual to obtain one.
I don't think of the government as a giant collection of insane people, as you do. I think of them as an overlarge collection of flawed (but normal) humans inefficiently organized. My question about whether a private individual should be allowed to possess a nuclear weapon (or ricin, or some other weapon capable of widespread destruction) is designed to test whether the Second Amendment right to self-protection is limitless. I believe it is a right, but not a limitless right.
When you argued that a private individual should be allowed to own a nuclear weapon you are essentially saying that there is
no limit to the right of an individual to protect himself. But then you go and claim that this is acceptable because not many people could afford it anyway. But that's beside the point, KBL -- don't you see that? Should Steve Jobs, a billionaire, and potentially capable of financing a nuke been allowed by the law to build one? Ignore the political theorizing for the moment, and apply the 'smell test', and it fails even there.
I'm taking the gloves off now, KBL, because you've accused me (wrongly) of calling you crazy. Again, had you actually read the post you would see that I went to great pains to not call you crazy, just that one statement. And I gave you lots of opportunities to modify the statement or back away from it, because that's only fair. But instead, you lumped me in with a bunch of namecallers because I challenged one of your ideas. And then you maligned the U.S. Constitution, so no more deference for you.
So now let's imagine ricin, which (horrifyingly) does not require a lot of money to make. Should someone who feels so completely threatened by the world around them be allowed to make ricin, KBL? According to you, only
using ricin would be wrong, not
owning it. But the world is a complicated place. Let's say our hypothetical owner just purchased the ricing from someone. It still implies a market for ricin! Someone is making it somewhere, and the making of something that horrible is dangerous, not acceptable to the larger good of protecting people from harm. Ownership is an action. Individual ownership of a handgun does impose some risk to society, but it is a risk that society must accept. But it does not have to accept an individual owning a weapon capable of harming thousands of people --
that goes too far.Is any of this making sense to you, KBL?
Your assumption that the state in control of the nuke is fair because it represents the interests of the majority assumes a democracy - but our present political system is purely oligarchical! So, that can't be true. And are you saying it's better that this maniacal and insane monopoly on violence has it's finger on the trigger rather than a peaceful person who would simply own such property with no intention to use it at all? The point is that ownership doesn't imply intent; it can only imply an ability to infringe upon another's right to life in a certain way. But ownership of property in and of itself does not infringe upon others' rights.
Yes, I believe a weapon of potential widespread destruction should only rest in the hands of a body of people whose task is the defense of a large number of people. Those kinds of weapons are for defending nations, not single individuals. A large body of people have the necessary skills for that weapons safe manufacture, storage; a single individual likely does not have the skills and knowledge necessary to make the ownership of that weapon safe for others.
It's the same way with firearms.
That's a foolish statement. Ricin, nukes -- they're not the same as firearms. They're not the same as a handgun, KBL. If this simple fact is not evident to you then I'm a fool for continuing this debate. Are you crazy? I have no idea, I don't know you. But I know your arguments, and some of your arguments, ideas, beliefs are certifiable. Does this reflect poorly on you? Sure. But that's unavoidable on my part. Earlier in this discussion (page one) I stated that I was in support of child safety laws on the grounds that children cannot advocate for themselves; they can't say, "Hey Mom, Dad, get me a child safety seat!" But you pointed out that parents should make those decisions, not governments, as governments don't own children. I modified my position on the strength of your argument.
But this is something you cannot do yourself. Not even on something as transparently obvious as whether a private individual should own a weapon of mass destruction.
Now Krogenar, you're starting to worry me here...you're attacking me and not my ideas. You're calling me crazy, because I think that there shouldn't be laws against the type of property that people can own. How do you justify the opposite when the simple fact of property ownership it, in and of itself, does not infringe on another person's rights?
I'm worrying you? Well, the feeling is mutual.
Attack my ideas, Krog. Don't attack me.
I haven't attacked you, personally, KBL -- just your batpoop-crazy idea that the individual right to self-protection is limitless, therefore extending to individuals the right to own ricin, nukes, and other weapons of mass destruction.
Oh and speaking of the second amendment, I thought I already made a point about the Constitution (and about all laws really) but I'll make it here now. They are all meaningless. That are literally worth about as much as a piece of paper with writing on it. If I write on a piece of paper that I can steal from you, does that make it true? No? Well, then how does the Constitution's right of taxation make it so? Or it's inherent ability to own slaves? Or it's inherent racism or sexism? Or the ability for precious metals to be used as legal tender? The point is that all laws are always at the discretion of those in the monopoly of violence. The Constitution itself HAS no inherent authority or obligation, which is why it's simply used by the state for whatever is in the best interests of the state. That's why it's violated ALL THE TIME. As Spooner rightly said in "No Treason" (which I highly recommend reading especially if you consider yourself libertarian), The Constitution either authorized the government we have today or was powerless to stop it.
You clearly don't like laws, KBL, that's fine, but they're not all meaningless. jdcapre quote the Declaration of Independence earlier, which states that:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The Framers acknowledged that all the documents generated by them would be merely scraps of paper that enshrined the natural order, natural laws -- that it is wrong to take by force, etc. Documents that reflect these natural laws concerning the rights of humans are not meaningless, in my view. This is key: the rights of people do not come from a piece of paper, they do not come from the government. This is important because if rights are given by the government, by a scrap of paper, then that government or the scrap of paper can decide to take them away. But when these rights are imbued into us by our Creator (that could be a deity, a spaghetti-monster, or nature, etc. -- doesn't matter) then no one can take them away completely. Even as the Framers wrote on paper, their words were designed to transcend that paper.
So. Give the Framers their due, KBL --- The Constitution is a beautiful document, unlike any other, and worthy of protection.
Statism must be questioned at all levels. You need to ask yourself questions like, what is truly stopping people from obtaining the weapons you don't want them to have now?
I don't want private individuals to make or own ricin, or nuclear weapons. Homeland Security, and various other national agencies (representatives of much larger groups of people) are actively trying to stop people from owning those WMDs, and I hope they are successful.
If they already have them, how would you want them to be taken away?
If a private individual already has ricin, a nuke or some other WMD, I want it to be taken away from them ...
carefully. Which supports my argument as to
why they shouldn't have them in the first place. I'm not a member of a SWAT team, but my guess is that taking firearms (handguns) away from an individual is a lot easier than taking a WMD away from them. Ideally, private individuals would not obtain WMDs at all. Ever. I'm feeling pretty confident that this is a sensible position. But since I'm a troll anyway, who has just attacked you and not your ideas, please don't feel the need to respond with an argument.
Heads up -- I am about to lampoon your idea, not you -- it might hurt your feelings, so don't stand too close to those ideas for the next few lines of text, ok?
If they aren't being used for nefarious purposes, why would you want [ricin, nukes, sarin, other WMDs] to be taken away?
(Krog being dragged off by police)
Krog: "That ricin was for peaceful purposes! And the dirty nuke was for ... for my personal protection! I have the right to irradiate a large area of land in order to protect myself!"
Police: "Yeah, ok."
Krog: "I have rights! I had no intention of ever using these weapons! None!"
(A battalion of men in bright yellow biohazard suits runs into Krog's house)
Police: "I feel a lot safer now that you said that, sir."
Krog: "What kind of tyrannical statist government would prohibit me from exercising my right to own ricin! This is an outrage!"
"Why are your rights to property ownership more legitimate than [their right to own a WMD]?
Because WMDs are capable of a level of destruction that would impact a huge number of other people's rights, KBL. Can a handgun or assault weapon cause widespread harm? Yes, but nowhere near the levels that some weapons can achieve, and hence, it is rational and wise to limit their ownership to organizations that are tasked with protecting large groups of people. The answer is scale. I believe that the reasons for why you should not own ricin are now self-evident.
And here's another thing to ponder: if you don't wish to live in my world, the beauty is that you are free to go. But I am forced to live in yours. Do you believe people should have the right to be left alone? I do.
I agree that we live in wildly different worlds, KBL, but you are wrong again! I am NOT FREE to leave your world, KBL. And you cannot leave mine. We're forced to live in it together, which is why we have politics in the first place, to try to make the living arrangements more pleasant for everyone. I am sorry you feel trapped in a world you don't like. I will leave you alone. But the question is: Can
you manage to be left alone without owning ricin, KBL? Or is this too great an imposition by me and all the other people like me who are really opposed to any single person owning ricin on the grounds that, well, we could all end up dead, otherwise? Maybe I'm completely off-base here, but you sound angry. I am opposed to peace-loving hippies owning ricin, but I am even more opposed to angry people owning ricin. Not because I'm a statist, or a tyrant, but because I want to continue living. I respect and acknowledge your right to self-protection; your right to own a firearm in the defense of that right -- but there's a limit. Ricin, and other WMDs fall within that proscribed limit of what you are allowed to own. Sorry.
All I was hoping was that you could admit that the right to self-protection is not unlimited; not absolute. What I didn't count on was that doing so would prove that a state is necessary, which would cause your philosophy of voluntaryism to come crashing down all around you.
Anyway, this discussion is over for me. I think I've made my point as objectively as I know how and in the process I've been wrongly accused of trolling and misrepresenting KBL's position.
