libertarian candidates

[Kerberos]

Re: Re: Re: Badnarik, JFK conspiracy theorist

Back to your Nuke fairy-tales.


-- Rouser

Still having trouble with your glasses I see. Perhaps if I try a different colour: "I would want to be REALLY CLOSE FRIENDS with anyone who had any form of nuclear capability nuclear capability nuclear capability nuclear capability nuclear capability" Can You see it now?

Edited to add: nuclear capability in case you didn't see it the other times.

 

[shanek]

Okay, since the whole owning-nukes thing is already a strained hypothetical, let me posit this:

A rich zillionaire is fed up with our government's inability to come up with a missile defense system that works worth a frell. He then builds an offshore system, well out of range of any populations and with more than sufficient warning buoys, which is a combination of traditional missiles and nukes which is very well capable of intercepting attacks launched at the US from overseas. Assume that the system works like gangbusters, and security is every bit as tight as it needs to be to prevent both accidents and from a terrorist using it against the US.

Should he be allowed to do this, or should the government restrict him because we have no right to own nukes?

 

[Rouser2]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Badnarik, JFK conspiracy theorist

Originally posted by Kerberos [/i]


>>Perhaps if I try a different colour: "I would want to be REALLY CLOSE FRIENDS with anyone who had any form of nuclear capability nuclear capability nuclear capability


Still, there is no claim of a citizen's right to own nukes in this transparent hypothetical. Nor is there any documentation for the source of this quote.


-- Rouser

 

[Kerberos]

Oh, my God, NOOO!!! You mean the government would actually be FORCED TO PROVE ITS CASE BEFORE IT CAN DEPRIVE PEOPLE OF THEIR RIGHTS????? HOW HORRIBLE!!!!

According to our Constitution, the burden of proof is SUPPOSED to be on the government. Thank you for proving you don't have a clue how the Constitution or the principles of liberty work.

Yes the burden of proof for a crime being committed. If possessing a nuke or attempt to acquire one is a crimme then they have to prove possession or attempts to acquire. Having a nuke is as I've pointed out repeatedly the equivalent of having a gun pointed at anybody within the blast radius. If somebody has a gun pointed at mem I don't want to have to prove that he was going to use it to kill mem because by the time I have that proof it will very likely be to late.

No, what matters is that your argument is valid, which it isn't, at least not that particular one.

Saying my argument is invalid doesn't make it so but that is entirely beside the point. You "rebuttal" was based on a "guilt by association" argument, which is a form of non sequitur. Even if my argument had been invalid, your point would still have been a non sequitur Admit it and move on.

And how would it be any more possible under the Badnarik administration? Nukes are extremely difficult for governments with millions and millions of dollars to get!

Most governments aren't free to have nukes either; a country that is found to seek nuclear weapons could face boycotts, international isolation or even military action. Therefore they need to seek them in secret which hampers their efforts.

This is a tempest in a teacup.

Yes, but only because there's no chance in hell that he would be elected, and because he would be impeached within a week if he was, at least if he's going to deliver on his election-promises.

Okay, since the whole owning-nukes thing is already a strained hypothetical, let me posit this:

A rich zillionaire is fed up with our government's inability to come up with a missile defense system that works worth a frell. He then builds an offshore system, well out of range of any populations and with more than sufficient warning buoys, which is a combination of traditional missiles and nukes which is very well capable of intercepting attacks launched at the US from overseas. Assume that the system works like gangbusters, and security is every bit as tight as it needs to be to prevent both accidents and from a terrorist using it against the US.

Should he be allowed to do this, or should the government restrict him because we have no right to own nukes?

I suppose that I could support giving our hypothetical zillionaire permission if we really, really trusted him, and we could set safeguards in place that made sure he couldn't lunch them against USA or some other country, but that would be a case of giving him special permission not of granting a general right. If possessing nuclear weapons was a right, then our hypothetical benefactor could get nukes, but so could anybody else who we couldn't prove was going to use them to kill millions of innocents.

 

[Kerberos]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Badnarik, JFK conspiracy theorist

Still, there is no claim of a citizen's right to own nukes in this transparent hypothetical. Nor is there any documentation for the source of this quote.


-- Rouser [/B]

First of all you claimed that the word nuclear didn't appear in the text, and secondly it is clear from context that he is saying that citizens have a right to posses nukes. The entire passage has been posted twice on this thread and it has been attributed. Still here's the link, but it's in googles cache so it might disapear sooner ot later, I don't know how long it's stored.
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cach...+who+had+any+form+of+nuclear+capability&hl=da

 

[Kerberos]

Re: Re: Re: Badnarik, JFK conspiracy theorist

Actually, Penn & Teller's How To Play With Your Food has an excellent demonstration of this. I mentioned the book to him via email, and apparently this is one of the things that convinced him otherwise. (In fact, given that he's no stranger to firearms, I wouldn't be surprised if he tried this himself!)

Can't blame him, if I had a gun I'd try it myself though more because it would be fun than for testing it.

Badnarik is willing to examine his beliefs skeptically and change them if they're wrong. Can you really say the same thing about Bush and Kerry?

That is admirable certainly, especially that he admits it. Bush probably wouldn't have done it and I suspect that Kerry wouldn't either but that's based more on my general experience with politicians than any knowledge of Kerry's record in that area. This infallibility complex is one of the traits that I find most irritating with politicians. Still it's hardly enough to make me want to vote for a guy who apparently feels that the president has the power to tell Congress what powers they have (disregarding the fact that I can't vote due to not being American). Of course as I said he would be empeached if he tried to do what he says so...

 

[varwoche]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Badnarik, JFK conspiracy theorist

Edited to add: nuclear capability in case you didn't see it the other times.

... prolonged, out loud

 

[varwoche]

Okay, since the whole owning-nukes thing is already a strained hypothetical...

I concede that in the first year of a Badnarik presidency, private nukes per capita is not apt to increase drastically from the 0% where it stands today. It's possible if not probable that someone would whip one up eventually.

Don't forget though, Badnarik also believes in right-bear-chem and right-to-bear bio. They say that Ricin is easy to manufacture in the kitchen.

Forget the 2nd amendment aspect; this has curious foriegn policy implications...

I wonder how Badnarik would respond to other countries allowing private nuclear, chemical, and bio weapons. Like Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran.

I wonder if Pakistan's liberalized private weapons laws will be applied to the semi-autonomous tribal regions? (Hint.)

 

[Kerberos]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Badnarik, JFK conspiracy theorist

... prolonged, out loud

Well Roucher seemed to have trouble with his eays so I decided to be helpful.

 

[shanek]

Yes the burden of proof for a crime being committed. If possessing a nuke or attempt to acquire one is a crimme then they have to prove possession or attempts to acquire.

A crucial aspect of pretty much any crime, be it murder or whatever, is mens rea. That deals with motive and intent. Firing a gun at another human being may or may not be a crime based on mens rea. If your motive is self-defense, and your intent is to stop that person taking a life, it's not murder. If your motive is greed and your intent is to take his money, then it is.

Are you HONESTLY telling me that this shouldn't apply at all to people acquiring weapons? That somehow, something they can determine in practically every other crime is suddenly impossible in this case?

Having a nuke is as I've pointed out repeatedly the equivalent of having a gun pointed at anybody within the blast radius.

IF it's armed and ready to launch or detonate. As I pointed out, that's not necessarily the case.

If somebody has a gun pointed at mem I don't want to have to prove that he was going to use it to kill mem because by the time I have that proof it will very likely be to late.

I agree 100%. And if someone has a nuke armed and ready to detonate, either pointed at a target or around the radius of it exploding in place, then I fully agree that it's time to step in.

Saying my argument is invalid doesn't make it so but that is entirely beside the point.

I showed WHY the argument was invalid. You called it a non-sequitur for reasons that don't have anything to do with showing the argument to be invalid.

Yes, but only because there's no chance in hell that he would be elected, and because he would be impeached within a week if he was, at least if he's going to deliver on his election-promises.

Let's assume that he is elected, and assume he manages to get through his first weeks in office without impeachment: how much threat would we be under from people having nukes? Please show your work.

I suppose that I could support giving our hypothetical zillionaire permission if we really, really trusted him, and we could set safeguards in place that made sure he couldn't lunch them against USA or some other country, but that would be a case of giving him special permission not of granting a general right. If possessing nuclear weapons was a right, then our hypothetical benefactor could get nukes, but so could anybody else who we couldn't prove was going to use them to kill millions of innocents.

And how do you make the determination that it's not a right, that we should only restrict certain people from doing if they do it dangerously, and a privilege, so we should only allow people to do it if they do it safely?

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Badnarik, JFK conspiracy theorist

Still it's hardly enough to make me want to vote for a guy who apparently feels that the president has the power to tell Congress what powers they have

And how does he want to do that? The closest he ever comes is by advocating that they take his Constitution class, but then he'd only be telling them what the Constitution says what powers they have, which is something I'd think they should know anyway (and precious few of them do; go up to your average legislator and ask him what the 10th Amendment says and watch him stare at you blankly).

 

[shanek]

I concede that in the first year of a Badnarik presidency, private nukes per capita is not apt to increase drastically from the 0% where it stands today. It's possible if not probable that someone would whip one up eventually.

And what reason do we have to believe that that probability is any greater than if people were prohibited by law from doing so?

I wonder how Badnarik would respond to other countries allowing private nuclear, chemical, and bio weapons. Like Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran.

Probably by shoring up our defenses at home against attacks from such weapons. Probably NOT by making up bull$#!7 reasons for barging the military into a country where they have no business being and that was no threat to us in the first place and calling the tins of fertilizer that are found "weapons of mass destruction."

 

[varwoche]

Re: Re: Badnarik pow-wow

And nowhere even in any of the non-sourced unauthorized "caches" bandied about does Badnarik allegedly claim any right of citizens to own nukes.

A call for technical support: What's the code for the animated icon of the guy pounding his head on the desk?

What next, google "cache" has been compromised by the UN?

(edited to place quotes around the word "cache")

 

[shanek]

By the way, here's a nice article on the issue that seems to argue for something closer to my point than Badnarik's (although I do disagree with a couple of things in it, as well):

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b4d03ea2636.htm

 

[varwoche]

interlude

And it seems to me you lived your life
Like a candle in the wind:
Never fading with the sunset
When the rain set in.
And your footsteps will always fall here,
Along England's greenest hills;
Your candle's burned out long before
Your legend ever will.

TOTALLY!

 

[Kerberos]

By the way, here's a nice article on the issue that seems to argue for something closer to my point than Badnarik's (although I do disagree with a couple of things in it, as well):

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b4d03ea2636.htm

I pretty much agree with it too, except I'd place cannons in the semi-indiscrimate categori and a few other details. I'm a little puzzled why you post it though, when I pointed out that nukes are worthless for selfdefense, you dismissed it as irrelevant, why is it suddenly relevant when somebody alse says it?

 

[shanek]

I pretty much agree with it too, except I'd place cannons in the semi-indiscrimate categori and a few other details. I'm a little puzzled why you post it though, when I pointed out that nukes are worthless for selfdefense, you dismissed it as irrelevant, why is it suddenly relevant when somebody alse says it?

It was irrelevant to the point you were trying to make at the time. I never said it was irrelevant to the entire discussion. I think that Badnarik does have a valid point, even though I disagree with it. Why can't others here do the same?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Re: Badnarik, JFK conspiracy theorist

Another piece of the puzzle that is Badnarik.

It's the fact that Badnarik is a JFK conspiracy theorist that's interesting, moreso than the text.

Now it becomes clear why Rouser2 is defending him with such loony vigor!

 

[varwoche]

Shanek, pardon me for having shifted from ridiculing Badnarik to riducling you. I intend to keep expressing my views, but sans the taunting. (No mercy for Badnarik however.)

It is still true that I consider certain of your views as startlingly extreme. Surely you are aware you are making statements that are not mainstream?

Maybe you're not lunatic fringe; maybe you're the enlightened fringe. Concede you're on the fringe though.

To start with, you could concede that some of the more provocative views you have advocated, i.e. right-to-nukes and powers of the president, would unlikely be shared by the president, any living former president, any current or former vp's, any current or former cabinet member, any current or former senator, 99% of representatives (you never know), and the supreme court. Let's not quibble if my estimate is off by .01% -- you get the idea.

Concede this and then we might have an intellectually honest discussion.

 

[shanek]

It is still true that I consider certain of your views as startlingly extreme. Surely you are aware you are making statements that are not mainstream?

Yes.

Maybe you're not lunatic fringe; maybe you're the enlightened fringe. Concede you're on the fringe though.

When have I ever said otherwise?

And while we're on the subject of conceding, do you concede that the Second Amendment largely came about because in 1775 the British government began confiscating cannons and large stores of gunpower from the colonists, which were the biggest weapons available at the time and would give the British the biggest advantage over the colonies?