[Pants-of-dog]

I think people should be allowed to keep their penises. Draw whatever conclusion you will.

I will assume you agree with me, since my position is the more libertarian one.

[Joe Liberty]

I will assume you agree with me, since my position is the more libertarian one.

You should only assume that I know better than to get into a quote-unquote debate with you.

And penises.

[Pants-of-dog]

You should only assume that I know better than to get into a quote-unquote debate with you.

And penises.

Sure.

Anyways, do you have anything to say about the actual debate?

[SolarCross]

POD - Risk isn't a usual cause for taking someone to court, usually lawful remedy is sought for actual harm done rather than harm that might happen, but it isn't unknown. Take for example restraining orders that are sometimes taken out against creepy obsessive people who stalk but have not yet harmed some person. The rationale is one of perceived risk rather than actual harm done.

[Pants-of-dog]

Are you suggesting that the mercs are as dangerous to their neighbours as creepy stalkers are to their targets?

[SolarCross]

Are you suggesting that the mercs are as dangerous to their neighbours as creepy stalkers are to their targets?

That really isn't the point although I suspect many creepy stalkers are just sad, lonely people with nothing better to do rather than people with harmful intent and it is pretty hard not to see WMDs as being "not dangerous", they are after all by design meant to cause megadeaths. WMDs are not your daddy's shotgun.

I think Joe has you right though so I don't know why I am bothering.

Oh and penises.

[Pants-of-dog]

That really isn't the point

Then what is your point?

For the nth time, do you have any real rational reason to believe that having the mercs as your neighbour will actually be a significant risk to you?

although I suspect many creepy stalkers are just sad, lonely people with nothing better to do rather than people with harmful intent and it is pretty hard not to see WMDs as being "not dangerous", they are after all by design meant to cause megadeaths. WMDs are not your daddy's shotgun.

Of course they are dangerous. That is why you have them: as a way to maintain your liberty by threatening those who threaten you (i.e. the other guys with WMDs, the gov't).

Are you saying that only gov'ts should be allowed to have things that dangerous?

I think Joe has you right though so I don't know why I am bothering.

Oh and penises.

Can you come up with rational reasons why I should not be allowed to own WMDs as long as I store them safely?

[Voluntarism]

Can you come up with rational reasons why I should not be allowed to own WMDs as long as I store them safely?

As we've been saying, just like any other material where possession can be of risk/threat to your neighbours there's no reason why you cannot have something as long as you can demonstrate to them a credible reason for possession and minimisation of the risks such that they are happy. This includes penises, toxic waste, explosives, nuclear reactors, WMD's and guns in crowded elevators. In the case of WMD's however, it is difficult to see many (any?) such circumstances.

[ThereBeDragons]

As we've been saying, just like any other material where possession can be of risk/threat to your neighbours there's no reason why you cannot have something as long as you can demonstrate to them a credible reason for possession and minimisation of the risks such that they are happy. This includes penises, toxic waste, explosives, nuclear reactors, WMD's and guns in crowded elevators. In the case of WMD's however, it is difficult to see many (any?) such circumstances.

I'm afraid of a foreign army seizing my property and need a credible deterrent.

[Voluntarism]

Then convince the people in your community that you are a suitable person for doing that and that it won't indiscriminately kill hundreds of thousands of noncombatants in the process (and so on and so forth).

[Pants-of-dog]

As we've been saying, just like any other material where possession can be of risk/threat to your neighbours there's no reason why you cannot have something as long as you can demonstrate to them a credible reason for possession and minimisation of the risks such that they are happy. This includes penises, toxic waste, explosives, nuclear reactors, WMD's and guns in crowded elevators. In the case of WMD's however, it is difficult to see many (any?) such circumstances.

Let's go through this one point at a time:

Some (perhaps all) things can possess a risk/threat to your neighbours. On this, we seem to agree.

There's no reason why I cannot have something as long as I am not harming anyone else, or running a significant risk that I am about to harm someone. I don't think this means that I must demonstrate to anyone a credible reason for possession of this thing, be it a nuclear weapon or hammer.

I agree that I have an obligation to minimise the risks such that the neighbours are safe from any significant harm or risk of harm. I disagree that I must make them "happy", as that is subjective and vague.

As for the circumstances, I believe that There Be Dragons has suggested one possible set of circumstances. Or one could be afraid of a domestic army seizing one's property, and thus in need of a credible deterrent. However, I do not think my rights should be dependent on circumstance. It would be more libertarian to assume that I have the right to WMDs except under very specific circumstances.

Then convince the people in your community that you are a suitable person for doing that and that it won't indiscriminately kill hundreds of thousands of noncombatants in the process (and so on and so forth).

Or the neighbours can convince a judge that I am not a suitable person, which would be hard to do since I went to all the effort of building a secure nuclear facility.

[SolarCross]

POD - judging by your last post I think you are looking for a hard and fast rule on WMDs; can I or can't I have them. That is a somewhat statist mindset to be looking for a one-size-fits-all super rule that we can all slavishly obey. This doesn't work for a voluntary society or free society; it is less about rules and more about principles. How those principles are applied to diverse and ever changing and unique circumstances is a complex thing that will tend to produce best-fit rules rather a one-size-fits-all rule. In a free society no one is boss / god / big brother, there is no supreme master of men. No one is above the law and no one is immune to the judgement of their peers, even the professional courts are not immune. Every reasonably competent person has as much right to be a "lawgiver" as anyone else. What this will mean is that whether or not you can have WMDs will be very, very much specific to the exact circumstances. Yes having demonstrably good maintenance and security procedures will help make your case. Yes putting them somewhere remote from the spheres of interest of others will help your case. Other than that whether you can have them or not and under what conditions is really the product of a negotiation between you and those that are concerned with your plans. Those that might challenge you will also have to make a rational case to stop you, they can't dictate to you anymore that you can to them.

[Drlee]

POD - judging by your last post I think you are looking for a hard and fast rule on WMDs; can I or can't I have them. That is a somewhat statist mindset to be looking for a one-size-fits-all super rule that we can all slavishly obey.

Sometimes a debate just becomes laughable. Yea. All statists hate the private ownership of Nuclear Weapons. Fucking Statists. Next thing you know they will slavishly whine about the neighbor weaponising smallpox.

Get a grip Taxizen. You are seriously making a fool of yourself. Really.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

I demand my God-given 2nd Amendment rights on owning a biological WMD in the comfort of my own home. It's nobody's fucking business what I do with it or whether I attack my neighbors with smallpox or anthrax if I so choose, in self defense. Most likely, I won't even use it. Why should the government have a monopoly on nuclear, chemical, and biological WMDs? An armed population is the best deterrent against civil disorder and chaos. Tens of millions of households armed to the teeth with weapons of mass destruction will make the rest of the world think twice about taking on America.

Goddamn someone needs to remind this thread to stop skipping its autism meds.

[mum]

Bulaba Jones try actually reading the posts, it might help make your arguments remotely relevant.
Dr Lee(Troll) For gods sake please stop trolling I know you are doing it deliberately, don't you have anything better to do ?
Since you guys completely lack the basic skill of reason if you don't have the capacity to contribute to the thread please don't post.

NB: Neither of you contributed to this thread

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

Okay. I will try.

[Drlee]

Bulaba Jones try actually reading the posts, it might help make your arguments remotely relevant.
Dr Lee(Troll) For gods sake please stop trolling I know you are doing it deliberately, don't you have anything better to do ?
Since you guys completely lack the basic skill of reason if you don't have the capacity to contribute to the thread please don't post.

NB: Neither of you contributed to this thread

Go away. The adults are busy.

[mum]

Go away. The adults are busy.

Are they? Well stop trolling and let them continue

[Pants-of-dog]

POD - judging by your last post I think you are looking for a hard and fast rule on WMDs; can I or can't I have them.

No. You are wrong. I am not looking for a rule.

I am pointing out my position: that people should be allowed to have WMDs provided they comply with environmental, health, and safety regulations. Please note that my position is consistent with the NAP, while yours is not.

That is a somewhat statist mindset to be looking for a one-size-fits-all super rule that we can all slavishly obey. This doesn't work for a voluntary society or free society; it is less about rules and more about principles. How those principles are applied to diverse and ever changing and unique circumstances is a complex thing that will tend to produce best-fit rules rather a one-size-fits-all rule. In a free society no one is boss / god / big brother, there is no supreme master of men. No one is above the law and no one is immune to the judgement of their peers, even the professional courts are not immune. Every reasonably competent person has as much right to be a "lawgiver" as anyone else. What this will mean is that whether or not you can have WMDs will be very, very much specific to the exact circumstances. Yes having demonstrably good maintenance and security procedures will help make your case. Yes putting them somewhere remote from the spheres of interest of others will help your case. Other than that whether you can have them or not and under what conditions is really the product of a negotiation between you and those that are concerned with your plans. Those that might challenge you will also have to make a rational case to stop you, they can't dictate to you anymore that you can to them.

You have this weird idea that I don't know about RWL philosophy. I do. In fact, I know it better than you, since I can actually defend Rothbard's arguments of the body as property. This is because I am more libertarian than you about many topics.

Now, rather than explaining it to me for the nth time as if I did not know, can you please answer my questions?

I asked if you had any real rational reason to believe that having the mercs as your neighbour will actually be a significant risk to you. I asked you if you think that only gov'ts should be allowed to have things that dangerous. You have not answered these questions.

I understand that it depends on circumstances. I am pointing out that if the circumstances are that I comply with health, safety, and environmental regulations, there is no reason why I should not be allowed to have WMDs.

[SolarCross]

No. You are wrong. I am not looking for a rule.

I am pointing out my position: that people should be allowed to have WMDs provided they comply with environmental, health, and safety regulations. Please note that my position is consistent with the NAP, while yours is not.

What about ethical "regulations"? Can one keep WMDs in accordance with reasonable ethical "regulations"? Building on Nunt's point about the indiscriminate nature of mass effect weapons, you literally cannot activate a WMD without committing horrendous crimes. It is quite different from a discriminate weapon like say a sniper rifle. With a discriminate weapon, properly used, you could slay bad guys who deserve to die all day every day for the rest of your life and never harm a single hair on the head of an innocent person. This is functionally impossible for a WMD, using one just once inevitably means killing masses of innocents. Okay you will say the point of WMDs doesn't have to be to activate them it could be just for threatening to activate them so that the bad guys don't do bad things; this is the deterrent argument. Except the threat is just a callable bluff if you don't actually have the willingness to activate them. This means there is no point to WMDs even for "defensive" purposes unless you are willing to commit crimes on a gigantic scale. Do you not think that is a relevant consideration?