Question for libertarians

[drkitten]

I call "stupid" on that.

Of course you do. But what you don't do -- because you can't -- is actually present arguments and evidence against it.

Or maybe it's your problem because you're an ignorant bigot.

Maybe. But I've cited evidence in support of my position, which means that I'm at least knowledgeable enough to have cherry-picked through the literature and found the out-of-context quotations supporting it. If I really am acting out of ignorance and bigotry, I'm sure you can illustrate it.

Until then, I stand by my position.

And, funny,.... the more abuse-without-substance I take from libertarian fools, the more confident I feel in my position --- and the more credible it looks.

 

[drkitten]

One crazy guy does not make all guys crazy

You know, I knew libertarians tended to average dumber than average.

But at least I expect them to know the difference between one and four. (Five, actually, since the Block and Block article is doubly authored.)

 

[drkitten]

A libertarian-friendly limit would likely involve disallowance of weapons that cannot be used without harming someone or their property.

But that violates my LIBERTY to own and collect the weapons without intending to use them! You can't infringe on my rights in that way without proof positive that I intend to harm someone with them!

After all, people collect guns, don't they?

No, that's not a strawman argument; in fact, I quoted a version of it directly already.

After all, perhaps I’m a harmless collector of nuclear weapons who owns them simply for aesthetic value. By simply owning them I am committing no more of an aggressive action than by owning a pen. [...] Should I be restrained by possessing this pen without having committed or threatened to commit any actual aggression?

Once you accept that the mere possession of an object can be criminalized because there is an unacceptable risk that it can be used harmfully --- as you implicitly do with nukes --- then there's nothing wrong with banning handguns, or for that matter, pointed sticks. It's no longer a question of principle and of where your risk tolerance lies. Since I happen to have a rather low tolerance for taking a bullet and dying, I see no reason to permit you to have guns.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

A libertarian-friendly limit would likely involve disallowance of weapons that cannot be used without harming someone or their property. This would leave pretty much anything up to and including grenades. Perhaps some small explosives.

Nukes are outright non-starters, since even the smallest generate a blinding flash for miles, and pour radioactive material into the atmosphere that will certainly travel over someone else's land, contaminating it for perhaps years. Rocket launchers experience similar obstacles in their safe deployment.

Perhaps the best way to set a limit is to declare some explosive equivalent as an upper bound and regulate everything greater than that.

"disallowance of weapons that cannot be used without harming someone"? Other than the fact that you would need the structure of a government (no matter what you call it) to enforce that, what are you going to do when I fill a sock with sand and beat you about the head with it?

 

[balrog666]

The Libertarian stand on Nuclear Weapons are a perfect example of what happens when you follow an ideology with a total disregard of reality.
The Libertarians are living in a fantasy world, end of discussion.

Except they don't think that; a couple of kooks think that. So I will point out once again that libertarianism is a direction from where we are, not a goal of some idiotic utopia.

And, in a similar vein, if we judged all Democrats by Cindy Sheehan or Micheal Moore, we would all think they are crazy. And for good reasons. Ditto with judging Republicans by Pat Buchanan or Socialists by Cesar Chavez or Fascists by Pol Pot.

 

[drkitten]

Except they don't think that; a couple of kooks think that.

You say "a couple of kooks think that," I say "most Libertarians think that."

PoTAYto, PoTAHto. "A couple of kooks" is most of the libertarian party.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Once you accept that the mere possession of an object can be criminalized because there is an unacceptable risk that it can be used harmfully --- as you implicitly do with nukes --- then there's nothing wrong with banning handguns, or for that matter, pointed sticks. It's no longer a question of principle and of where your risk tolerance lies. Since I happen to have a rather low tolerance for taking a bullet and dying, I see no reason to permit you to have guns.

It is all a matter of where putting the limit

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

100% bigot.

That's "Freedom hating bigot."

Which is what Shanek used to call anyone who was in touch with reality.

 

[Matteo Martini]

That's "Freedom hating bigot."

Which is what Shanek used to call anyone who was in touch with reality.

What happened to Shanek, by the way?

 

[RadioactiveMan]

Of course you do. But what you don't do -- because you can't -- is actually present arguments and evidence against it.

Why the hell should I? Why does your blathering count as "evidence" and my statements are not?

Maybe. But I've cited evidence in support of my position, which means that I'm at least knowledgeable enough to have cherry-picked through the literature and found the out-of-context quotations supporting it. If I really am acting out of ignorance and bigotry, I'm sure you can illustrate it.

You can disprove my accusation quite easily: by citing peer-reviewed studies that show sociopathy has a greater prevalence amongst libertarians than the general population. That was your claim, after all.

And, funny,.... the more abuse-without-substance I take from libertarian fools, the more confident I feel in my position --- and the more credible it looks.

The more abuse YOU take? Pardon me whilst I laugh heartily at the crap you're shoveling.

Ha ha. Ha ha ha ha ha. Ha. Heh.

Which of us was the one who started tossing around diagnoses of mental illness? Are you even a psychiatrist? Or are you just full of male bovine fecal matter?

Don't pass yourself off as some sort of victim here. It's a LIE, and if you don't know it, you're the one with the mental illness.

 

[RadioactiveMan]

No, that's not a strawman argument; in fact, I quoted a version of it directly already.

It is a strawman. If you read carefully, you'll note where I plainly said prohibition of a weapon is acceptable if it cannot be used without harming someone or their property. Perhaps your idea of "using" a pen is more limited than mine, but I can think of ways to use one which do not involve stabbing at all.

Once you accept that the mere possession of an object can be criminalized because there is an unacceptable risk that it can be used harmfully --- as you implicitly do with nukes --- then there's nothing wrong with banning handguns, or for that matter, pointed sticks.

It's not just an "unacceptable risk." It's a matter of virtual improbability.

Furthermore, there's the right of self-defense which bolsters the notion that firearm ownership is something the government cannot keep a law-abiding citizen from doing. There's no self-defense relation to nuclear weapons for an individual person.

It's no longer a question of principle and of where your risk tolerance lies. Since I happen to have a rather low tolerance for taking a bullet and dying, I see no reason to permit you to have guns.

I see no reason to concede your authority on this matter.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

What happened to Shanek, by the way?

He was pretty much laughed off the forum.

 

[drkitten]

It is all a matter of where putting the limit

Except for the hardcore libertarians that form the "core" of the movement, who insist that no limit at all can be placed, in principle.

And as a result, libertarians look like out of touch fools.

... which, fundamentally, they are.

 

[drkitten]

It is a strawman. If you read carefully, you'll note where I plainly said prohibition of a weapon is acceptable if it cannot be used without harming someone or their property.

And I quoted a card-carrying libertarian citing a way in which an atomic bomb can be "used" in a way that doesn't hurt anyone.

As an art object.

It's not just an "unacceptable risk." It's a matter of virtual improbability.

Your own party theorists call you a liar.

I see no reason to concede your authority on this matter.

The fact that the "thugs with guns" (i.e., the policy makers society has elected) are on my side should be a pretty good reason.

 

[drkitten]

Why the hell should I? Why does your blathering count as "evidence" and my statements are not?

Because what I cite isn't my own blathering, but the blathering of certified libertarians.

You can disprove my accusation quite easily: by citing peer-reviewed studies that show sociopathy has a greater prevalence amongst libertarians than the general population.

I don't need to cite prevalence studies; I've got case studies instead.

And I've cited them.

And you? You've got nothing but your own uniformed and unsupported opinion.

That was your claim, after all.

Which of us was the one who started tossing around diagnoses of mental illness?

Me.

Are you even a psychiatrist?

Yes, I'm qualified to make those determinations, although not licensed to prescribe for them.

 

[balrog666]

You say "a couple of kooks think that," I say "most Libertarians think that."

PoTAYto, PoTAHto. "A couple of kooks" is most of the libertarian party.

That's true - it is most of the Libertarian Party.

It's just not most libertarians.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Except for the hardcore libertarians that form the "core" of the movement, who insist that no limit at all can be placed, in principle.

And as a result, libertarians look like out of touch fools.

... which, fundamentally, they are.

I do not think this is the case for most libertarians, however..

 

[RandFan]

So, everybody walks with their own gun?
What happen if someone gets drunk, and accidentally shoots someone?

I guess the same thing if someone happens to get drunk and gets into their own car and drives into someone else, assuming everybody drives around in their own car.

It's kind of a dumb argument Matteo.

FTR: I don't find the 2nd Amendment sacrosanct and I'm not a strict Libertarian.

I don't get the gun debate. I think proponents and opponents are emotionally invested in the issue and the facts don't matter.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Except they don't think that; a couple of kooks think that. So I will point out once again that libertarianism is a direction from where we are, not a goal of some idiotic utopia.

And, in a similar vein, if we judged all Democrats by Cindy Sheehan or Micheal Moore, we would all think they are crazy. And for good reasons. Ditto with judging Republicans by Pat Buchanan or Socialists by Cesar Chavez or Fascists by Pol Pot.

Properly it would be like judging republicans by Bush, or McCain. The person that they choose to represent themselves believes in individual ownership of nuclear weapons.

This is not the loonatic fringe this is the core of the libertarian party.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't get the gun debate. I think proponents and opponents are emotionally invested in the issue and the facts don't matter.

Well the problem is that there are always to many confounding issues, and there are also issues where it becomes about what is right not what is safe.

See all the things that always creep up when people debate the use of force to protect property and the like.