Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Anonymous, Dec 29, 2012.


looooong gun discussion

gun ban 2 vote(s) 6.7%
stricter gun control 11 vote(s) 36.7%
gun freedom 15 vote(s) 50.0%
Americans suck 6 vote(s) 20.0%
The British suck 6 vote(s) 20.0%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. That was my point when I wrote this:

    Wrong, shooting to the perps center of mass was the most likely to save the woman's life by hitting him with the first bullet and lessen the chance of hitting her or someone else.
  2. Disambiguation Global Moderator

    I wasn't disagreeing. The training is more than that, he had the presence of mind to aim and shoot the guy, not spray bullets around. He knew what to do and did it. This is not true of many of my co- gun owners. I for one would prevaricate until he rushed at me.
  3. fishypants Moderator

    i.e. not a civilian with a gun but rather an off-duty police officer.
    • Like Like x 2
  4. The Wrong Guy Member

    Making a homemade metal semi-automatic rifle just got crazy easy | Ars Technica

    Eighteen months after demonstrating that he could make a 3D-printed gun, Cody Wilson announced Wednesday that his nonprofit group, Defense Distributed, has now moved on to simplifying the process of manufacturing traditional metal guns.

    Defense Distributed is now selling a $1,200 computer-numerically-controlled (CNC) mill — dubbed the "Ghost Gunner" — that can complete an unfinished lower receiver for an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle as part of a limited pre-order.

    Continued here:

    3D printer for creating untraceable AR-15 rifles hits market | RT USA

    Defense Distributed has offered a pre-sale of its new milling machine which allows buyers to print and assemble a steel AR-15 rifle in the comfort of their own home. The weapon is completely untraceable.

    Ghost Gunner is the company’s new computer-numerically-controlled (CNC) milling machine. Unlike its so-called Liberator gun, which is a plastic gun design to be created via a 3D printer, the Ghost Gunner is the PC-connected hardware for manufacturing the lower receiver of the popular AR-15 rifle.

    Continued here:
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Random guy Member

    If the US administration had been a tad smarter, the would have regulated assault rifles by concentration on the barrel or bolt in stead. Try print those from plastic!
  6. Hugh Bris Member

    Or, they could, ya know, follow the constitution which says guns are our right, and stay out of what is perfectly legal.

    That new mill looks awesome, too.

    And iirc, the first 3d gun was all plastic. Longer barrels would no doubt create more problems. But there are 3d printers that print in metal.

    BTW, assault 'rifles' were heavily regulated in 1934 in the US. It's pretty much impossible to get one legally. Assault weapons, OTOH, do not exist except in the minds of some politicians and bureaucrats.
  7. fishypants Moderator

    What's the limit to that?

    The US Constitution just says 'right of the people to keep and bear arms'. Does that include nuclear weapons? Anthrax? If any limitation on your right to 'bear arms' is unconstitutional, then why shouldn't you have weapons of mass destruction?

    I'm guessing that at the time the Constitution was written, 'arms' would have meant muskets and that kind of single-shot weapon.

    But if you're saying it extends to all weapons - including modern ones - then doesn't the Constitution protect every American's right to own one of these:


    (ok, that's a movie prop)

    or one of these:


    (that's the real thing)


    If you accept the principle that private ownership of ICBMs is just too dangerous, then you're accepting that the Constitutional right to 'keep and bear arms' can be over-ridden by more important concerns of public safety.

    So then why not limit the right to 'keep and bear' arms like these:


  8. Hugh Bris Member

    A gun or a bomb is a thing, something that can be owned. So, if it is wrong for me to build a nuclear weapon, how can it be right for a government to build one? I can't give to the government a right I don't have. So either I have a right to nuclear weapons, and gave it to the government, or I don't have the right to a nuclear weapon and neither does the government.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. fishypants Moderator

    Actually I quite like that argument.

    Where do you draw the line between a weapon that's allowed and one that isn't, and why do you draw the line at that particular scale of weapon?

    On a lighter note:

    (The SAS are British special forces. Like the US Marines but much tougher and more tea-drinking).
  10. Hugh Bris Member

    I don't. I would not restrict ownership of anything. Property is property. Either I came about the object legitimately, or I didn't. I either made it or bought it, in which case it is legitimately mine, and not subject to confiscation by others, any more than my house, car or food is.

    Either we have private property or we don't. We can't have it both ways.

    I know, I know, it would lead to the destruction of society, or some such. But obviously, I don't think that. I think people are a lot more sensible than that, and they understand that violence begats violence, and trade begats prosperity and will act accordingly.

    Will there be some people who use it to hurt others? Absolutely. But then, when you have the way to fight back, people are far less willing to use violence, knowing that they may be the ones to lose.
  11. fishypants Moderator

    So I should be able to own weapons of mass destruction?

    I though you were saying that I shouldn't and neither should governments.

    We can and we do have it both ways.

    We (western societies) effectively say to citizens: "You can own private property but you're not allowed to own certain things. Such as weapons of mass destruction, human slaves, or Class-A drugs".

    Just because some things are legal for individuals to own, it doesn't follow that all things should be legal for individuals to own. There's a logical disconnect there.

    Empirical evidence from places such as Somalia, where there is no rule of law and so the most powerful gang boss is in charge of each little area, shows that statement to be untrue. Somalia is hugely violent. Likewise life in the human stone age: "nasty, brutish and short".
  12. Anonymous Member

    [Humor/]Every man needs a gun but that’s not enough − what can you do with a little gun today? We need bigger stuff available to every law abiding citizen.

    There should be some very long phone number that you could dial after any area code that would trigger a matrix of H bombs in that area. Anyone gives you a bad time you drive into the next state and dial him out.

    The number could be kept secret from youngsters, criminals and people with poor judgement.

    - Stever Baer, The Dome Cookbook, December, 1969.[/humor]

    Steve Baer 1969.jpg
  13. Hugh Bris Member

    tl;dr: Heinlein said "An armed society is a polite society."
    Just imagine how polite people would be if everyone owned an H bomb.:p

    You can unlike the post, if you wish. I don't mind. TBH, I was surprised when I saw the like. Now I understand.

    I am saying the theory, as I understand it, is that governments derives its power from the consent of the governed. When I have a right of self defense, I give it to the government (w/o giving up my right to personal self defense) so they can act more efficiently than I can act alone. So government cannot have a right that people don't have. If I don't have a right to weapons, they don't have the right. But if I do have the right, then govt derives its right to use weapons from m right of self defense. But see below for how I feel about bombs in war.

    Have you looked at how our govt defines WMD? It's pretty laughable, or really really sad, I'm not sure which. But every time the US fires a cruise missile or a Hellfire drone missile, they are using WMD.

    When you say "we" you are committing the fallacy of anthropomorphism. You are attributing human characteristics to a concept, society. Society did not ban WMD, a group of men and women did. Society did not ban slavery, men did, and society did not place pot on the Schedule One drug list, one man did. (Do you know how pot got on the list? If not, google Sanjay Gupta and pot and learn how unbelievably stupid govt can be. 40 years of war on citizens, all because ONE MAN was scared.)
    The logical disconnect is to exclude some forms of property from the general principle, Either we have property rights in what we make and buy, or we don't. If we do, then weapons are allowed.
    Many libertarians have taken up the study of Somalia since it's brought up as an example of anarchy, when in point of fact, it is an exercise in modern day proxy fights for other govt.

    Now that the foreign interests are not actively intervening in Somalia, the place is doing a lot better. Crime is way down, the economy seems to be going better. Odd, how they manage to live w/o a central govt, or any govt at all, to speak of. They do have xeer, iirc the spelling, which is a sort of common law that's been around a lot longer than any govt.

    As for using bombs of any sort, a bomb is much more indiscriminate in who it kills than a rifle, so I object to bombs as a method of war, period. Unless you can be utterly certain that no non combatants are involved, using a bomb is the equivalent of murder, and most likely, mass murder.

    But I can see construction projects that might go faster and save lives by using controlled nuclear explosions.

    So, we can't say a bomb is evil, in and of itself. Only that a bomb can be used for good or evil. Just like any other object ever made.

    I understand why people want to ban the bomb (I used to chant that in my younger days) but you can't destroy the foundational principles of society and expect good things to follow. The principle of private property is at the foundation of modern society.
  14. Random guy Member

    My post was merely pointing out the technical ineptitude. The wish to regulate was assumed.

    Sintering and casting (which is what the result of flash melting really is) won't do for parts undergoing high stress. Receivers and frame parts, sure, barrels, no. Bolt-head possibly, depends on construction. What you want in a barrel is forging.
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Random guy Member

    Most do, 98% or so. Those are not the problem.
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Random guy Member

    We've been over that before. Brits rarely have guns, yet are very polite. Americans have lots of guns and are less so. Comparing the Wikipedia list of gun density by nation with having visited a couple of them shows that the two variables do not correlate. Clearly, Heinlein was talking out of his ass.

    Yet I do not want any of my neighbours to have a can of mustard gas stashed away in case of a home invasion, nor do I like the thought of people like Aum Shinrykio to have easy and legal access to it.
    • Like Like x 1
  17. fishypants Moderator

    He was. The evidence doesn't support Heinlein's statement at all. Also, Heinlein was not really someone I'd want to take advice from.

    Your argument seems to be that it's unfair to take as a test case a country where foreign interests are involved.

    But I don't think that argument holds water. There is no country which does not have neighbours and foreign interests.

    Any political system worth its salt needs to be able to cope with attempted-interference-by-foreign-interests.

    I don't understand.

    I can think of lots of general principles that have exceptions.

    Usually where they're over-ridden by a more important general principle (as is the situation here, where the 'right to bear arms' principle is over-ridden by the 'nuclear weapons are too destructive for individuals to be trusted with owning them' principle).


    - Small children are not allowed to go out of the house by themselves (general principle: safety). Unless the house is on fire (exception based on immediate danger of death).

    - You are allowed to say anything you like (general principle: free speech). But you are not allowed to say "give me all your money or I will kill you" (exception: mugging is not allowed).

    So what I don't get about your argument is:

    • Why is it illogical to suggest that the general principle ('private property exists') should be over-ridden in certain circumstances by a more important principle (such as 'nuclear holocaust is bad' or 'lunatics should not be allowed to own weapons').
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Random guy Member

    You mean you do not want to base your life philosophy on the words of a "golden age" sci-fi writer??? Shock!
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Hugh Bris Member

    Then don't. That was simple. But I'll be sure to quote Heinlein more, just cause of the response I got from you and RG. :D
    Somalia is posited as some sort of 'libertarian paradise'. I was pointing out that it is the place where proxies fight. There is a difference. It is not an example of libertarian values, nor it is the result of libertarian values, It is the result of govts with too much money and not enough sense playing war with live people.

    Your examples were of immediate dangers. See below. If the general order is to "Stand here until relieved" it shouldn't require an additional order for "And if a piano is falling on you, move."

    If one person has the weapon, then your argument is destroyed. There is no way for Truman to have the right to have and use the Bomb, and not for us to have the right. As I said, the rights of govt are derived from our rights.
    The general principle is "Thou shalt not murder." Can you come up with an example where murder would be appropriate? And don't give me examples of self defense.

    A principle is how you build the edifice. If the foundation can be altered to suit personal needs and tastes, then there is no foundation.

    The principle is "Private property is at the foundation of human rights." In essence, all rights flow from private property. So you are going to have to come up with some pretty convincing arguments. "War is not healthy for children and other living creatures", while true, is not a principle. It is not the foundation of the chain of reasoning.

    Now, your next statement, 'Lunatics should not..." is an opinion several ways. You would have to define 'lunatic.' Since I think it was pure evil that Truman dropped 2 Bombs, I'd call him a lunatic. So, as I say, we'd have to agree on a definition of lunatic. And if you are incapable of telling a lunatic from a sane person except by their acts, they would have to act to know they were insane, at which point the non aggression principle comes into effect, or rather, the corollary, that you have the right to defend yourself.

    IOW, until the person exhibits criminal intent, he's just a person.

    Truman had the bomb, he had people telling him it wasn't necessary, yet he dropped not one but two. SO, I have to think that Harry was a lunatic of the first order. But he had the Bombs, and used them.

    And now there are many nations with Bombs. 'Nation' meaning "One man in the govt has the right to order the Bomb used." So you're argument doesn't hold. Lunatics do indeed already have nuclear bombs.

    And, of course, it'd be sort of unlikely that many people would be buying or building bombs. They are a bit expensive, they are dangerous, the insurance (in a free society) would probably be prohibitive, and they are not very useful for robberies and such. IOW, they aren't economically likely without the incentives of government.

    Let me ask you: Is there any thing that government has banned that has subsequently disappeared? Banning somethings drives it underground, nothing more.
  20. fishypants Moderator

    How so? Not getting your point here.

    I'd tend to the view that governments don't have any "rights" in the sense that individual people have human rights.

    What governments do have is legal powers which are assigned to them by the consent of the population at large (in a democracy) or which the government simply asserts by force (in an autocratic regime).

    So I'm not convinced by the idea that governments should never have legal powers which an individual can't have. I just don't see the logic.

    Why can't the population decide to assign legal powers to the government which don't directly correspond to the human rights of each individual? I don't get it.

    Example: My government has the legal right to confine people with Ebola. I as an individual don't have that right. I'm fine with that. I don't see a logical disconnect there. I'm quite happy with the idea that that's a legal right which individuals don't have but which we as a society have made a collective decision to grant to our government (subject to certain safeguards, checks and balances, etc).

    In all seriousness, I agree.
  21. Hugh Bris Member

    That's probably because it wasn't clear. What I am saying is that all property is legitimate. If I can make a bomb, that bomb is mine and no one else should have control over it. Not even if all of you vote against me.
    You are absolutely right. Govt do not have rights, only people. So saying the govt 'right' is a shorthand. My mistake. Too many people now think govt is the source of rights. That's sad and scary.
    I don't see how anyone who I voted against can claim consent from me. If I say NO that means no. It doesn't meant that other people can override my judgement, That results in my conscience being ripped from me. And that is one of my problems with govt. That to follow their dictates and edicts is to destroy my conscience.
    Please give me an example of where govt can do something that is forbidden the people.
    First, this is anthropomorphism. There is no 'population' to assign powers, only people.
    Second, how can I assign a power to someone else that I don't possess?
    Actually, you do have that right, That is where the govt got it. It is a form of self defense. The non aggression principle says you can take action against the initiation of force or fraud. i'd say highly contagious disease fits in that category. It isn't intentional, but it is a real and present danger, hence you have the right to protect yourself. I think you might be confusing the right with the ability. It's a lot easier for govt to enforce such restrictions.
    But think of a port and a diseased ship. The port authority, no matter if privately owned or govt owned, would have the right to refuse to service the ship.

    We can't unbreak the egg. As long as something can be made, it probably will be made. That means we must learn to deal with it.
    • Like Like x 2
  22. fishypants Moderator

    Interesting discussion. :)

    Why? What's the reasoning that gets you to that conclusion?

    When you're an adult living in a democratic state, the deal is that you agree to abide by the result of an election (rather than, for example, staging a coup d'etat if you don't get the result you wanted). In return all the other people also agree to abide by the result. So you know that if 'their' party wins then you'll have to put up with it, but they know that if 'your' party wins, they'll have to put up with it.

    It's the concept of a loyal opposition.


    • All the voters make a bargain with one another.
    • The bargain is that voting will be the decision-making apparatus, and that everyone will abide by decisions made that way. The bargain also states the mechanisms of counting the votes and that kind of technical detail.
    • If you don't want to accept the bargain at all then you can opt-out by leaving the country. You're allowed to take your wealth with you.
    Owning nuclear weapons.

    1. Teamwork: I don't possess the power to win a football match by myself, but working with others I do possess that power. Teamwork enables groups of people to do things that cannot be done by individuals working alone.
    2. Consent: I'm willing to give up my physical liberty if I commit a crime or if I have a terrible infectious disease, so long as everyone else has to adhere to the same rule.
    So this is a good bargain for me because it's much easier for a lot of people, working together, to fund and run the CDCand other centralised institutions, than it is for everyone to have to take personal responsibility for everything.

    In that same way that I don't grow most of the food I eat or generate any of the electricity I'm using to send this message to you now, I don't personally have to imprison criminals in my basement because (through taxation) I work with other citizens on having that function centrally provided.
    • Like Like x 2
  23. Ogsonofgroo Member

    Great posting up thar^^^

    IMHO gov'ts should be the administrators of the peoples, for the benefit of all life and all things in consideration, taking up the tasks of infrastructure and creating venues for real social harmony.

    How's that for altruistic :p
    • Like Like x 2
  24. Hugh Bris Member

    The nature of humans. I go by a simple axiom: All human action is purposeful.
    The logical results of this lead me to believe that anything that can be made is legitimate. A discussion would require some excursions into philosophy and human behavior.
    The deal SOMEONE ELSE MADE is what you describe. I didn't get a choice in the matter. the 'deal' was made 200 years before I was born, Don't see how something agreed on by people long dead should demand obedience now. We've been over this. The vote is NOT a legitimate means to decide important social issues. Voting is not what ya'll seem to make of it.

    Voting is a separate discussion.
    But you assume consent when it isn't there. I never consented to banning plastic bags, but I've gotta live with it. So because other people decided for me, I am now forced to live by their edicts. I do not see how that makes sense. The voters are idiots, if we go by the results. They vote for bread and circuses, which is the ruination of the Republic.

    Someone owns them now. According to pragmatic reasoning, Obama 'owns' a lot of nuclear weapons. So does Putin.

    1. Voluntary, Perfectly acceptable.
    2. Well, actually, I doubt you ever were asked if you were willing to give up your physical liberty, it was assumed. And in the US, it's pretty clear that the rule of law does not apply.

    If it is voluntary FOR ALL CONCERNED, then go for it. Otherwise, you are forcing others to ignore their conscience. In AnCapistan there would be organizations such as the CDC, only they would be privately funded. People understand that cooperation is what got us this far. Govt is supposed to organize us in ways not possible by private people. But especially now, with Twitter and social media, we don't need the centralization. The govt isn't needed to organize us, we can do it ourselves.

    Modern tech gives an amazing ability to create the emergent order needed to deal with crisis situations. It bypasses centralized authority in favor of a boots-on-the-ground-where-the-action-is approach.
    The division of labor is the reason we are rich, and getting richer and it does not rely on the govt to function, In fact, it functions better without the govt interference. The best the govt can hope to do is set up a level playing field. But since govt is a zero sum game, the players will always be trying to game the system. That's human nature. So I want a process that works regardless of who is in charge. In fact, I want emergent order, which is what 95% of our society uses now anyway. i want to extend it that last 5%.

    As an example, have you noticed what has happened in Venezuela recently, with price hikes? Every Austrian economist in the world saw that coming. That is the direct result of a govt interfering in the market for the 'common good'

    An example of emergent order would be how toilet paper (or most any product) arrives on your grocery shelves, 15 different brands, 35 different packages, all this abundance, and no single person made it happen. No TP Czar to ensure the stores are stocks. And in fact, if someone is put in charge, the system collapses. Venezuela, for instance.

    And your example reminded me of an excellent, chilling book by Walter Mosley
    The Man in My Basement (2004)
    Amazing if disturbing read. Walter Mosley writes modern morality tales. Totally awesome writer.
  25. fishypants Moderator

    I don't see how you get from there to 'an individual should be able to own any physical item that exists'.

    Two problems:

    • I don't agree with your axiom.
    • Even given the axiom, I don't see the logical chain leading from there to 'I should be able to own anything'.
    Yeah, well, me too. But any system is going to have children being born into it that haven't consented to it. So I don't see how parliamentary democracy is different from any other system in this respect. If you don't like it, you can campaign to change it or you can leave.

    Undeniably democracy can lead to short-termism. I'm not claiming perfection. But your proposed system amounts to government by the biggest thug, which is much worse.


    Really, no.

    When Obama's term of office ends, he doesn't get to take the nukes with him. Neither does he receive payment for them as they pass to the control of the next administration. I think that proves that they're not 'his'.

    They belong to the USA as a nation-state, they're not Obama's personal property. Being appointed to control something is not the same as having personal ownership of that thing oneself - this is the difference between a principal (owner) and an agent (makes decisions on behalf of the owner).

    It's the same situation as a company CEO who controls company resources on behalf of the company's shareholders.

    The reason that Conrad Black went to jail was that he treated company resources as though they were his personal property. If there were no difference between company property and CEO's-personal-property then the crime he committed could not exist. It would not have been possible for him to defraud Hollinger's shareholders of their property, if Hollinger's property had in fact belonged to Black.

    I doubt that Twitter is an effective substitute for many government functions.

    Also, us organising ourselves = government.


    For many goods, a free market works better than a centrally controlled state. The USSR pretty much proved that by counterexample.

    But for other types of goods and services - such as natural monopolies - experience has shown that laissez-faire capitalism is fraught with problems.
    • Like Like x 3
  26. Hugh Bris Member

    As I said, there’s a long logic chain. But the simplest way to think it about it is that I mix my labor with bits of the world and create something that didn’t exist before. That makes it mine, with absolute property rights. If I can make a rifle, it’s mine. If I can make a bomb, it’s mine.

    Then refute it. telling me you don’t agree says nothing. And if you’ll notice, the attempt to refute it proves it. that’s what makes it an axiom.
    Your agreement is not necessary. It stands on its own.

    Well, if it exists, someone made it. the person who made it, or the person he contracted to make it for, therefore owns it. It is the act of creating it that confers ownership. Once I made it, I own it, and have the right to do with it as I please, to the limits of my rights. ie, I can own it, but I can't use a bomb to blow up innocent people.
    There is a difference between common law, an emergent function, and legislative law, a top down approach. The emergent function shows the results of how people actually interacted, and how their differences were resolved. That means that it is the closet thing we have to a law of, by and for the people. It is a record of what has worked over the past centuries when people come into conflict.

    What govt does is to over take that emergent law function and turn it into a law of people, of what individuals who have power want.

    I don’t agree with Winston. The US was supposed to be a constitutional republic, not a democracy. The reason for that is the FF knew the dangers of democracy, the whole bread and circuses bit.

    And I understand your concern, that the biggest thug would take over, but isn’t that what we already have?

    And there is the legitimacy issue. A gov’t is considered legitimate, so when it starts violating the rights of citizens, it’s really hard to break free of that “I must obey legitimate authority” and that reluctance to realize the new reality kills you, metaphorically or IRL.

    But if a private company started acting badly, we’d have no issue with their legitimacy. They act badly. you respond with anger and the necessary violence to stop them.
    The person who can use them, owns them for all practical purposes. Harry did NOT consult the American people when he dropped the bombs, hence, in a pragmatic sense Truman ‘owned’ those bombs. Since ‘the American people’ is an abstract, control of the bombs rests with the current president. If he controls their use, then for all intents and purposes he owns them. It's not the same as me owning my socks, but considering that property rights get confusing when they are collective, it's no surprise it's hard to talk about the issue with accuracy
    Uh, then explain Clinton destroying millions of dollars of American weaponry, not to mention killing a people, all to distract from his blow job. No CEO I know would get away with something like that.

    Known property rights are laid out in private companies. that is not at all true in the govt. While ‘the people’ may own the resources, it’s the person who can use them that, for all intents and purposes, owns them. If I don’t have a say in ‘my’ public property, then I didn’t own them in any meaningful sense. As I say, it's hard to discuss this accurately when talking about govt property, since it is 'ours' but they control it.

    I doubt that govt is an effective solution for anything. The net has been used countless times (Chanology) to create emergent order movements.

    Without coercion, it’s a matter of volunteering. That’s the antithesis of govt. As long as you don’t order me to do something, or force me to pay for it, I’m OK. We organized ourselves into an effective force against COS. There was no coercion, just volunteers.

    But Chanology ≠ government. not by a long shot.

    Odd how the examples of ‘natural monopoly’ require govt to enforce it. That is not ‘natural’ at all
    There have been a few non govt ‘natural monopolies’, a nickel company in Canada comes to mind, but what I consider 'natural' monopolies are rare.

    And the group that tells you that the govt is needed to fix market failures is…the govt. Seems that should send alerts signals running, when the group that most benefits is the one you are getting your information from.

    Here’s the things about ‘the market.’ It is a process of discovery. That’s all it is. And like any discovery process, interfering with it lowers its effectiveness. Every ‘market’ failure has been an attempt by govt to control a process that can’t be controlled.

    The Mythbusters showed that the best way to organize a 4 way traffic intersection is not to use people directing traffic, or traffic lights, but emergent order, i.e., traffic circles, where the people negotiate the passage in real time. No amount of rules and regs can make that better. One rule is all that's needed. "Circle counterclockwise." Simple, elegant, and it passed through far more cars than the other, controlling, methods.

    And you do understand that the Cal electricity debacle was exactly because they deregulated HALF the market? I don't remember details but the govt, in its infinite wisdom, deregulated half the market. So, that "market failure' was engineered by Cal politicians. Sorry, try another example.
    actually, the very first sentence of the article refutes your thesis, that it was a market failure
    bold added. The 'capped retail electricity prices' is the half that wasn't deregulated. Any economists could have predicted the outcome of that debacle.

    It was a perfect example of hubris, of the Fatal Conceit, that anyone person or group can manage society, or portions thereof
    • Like Like x 1
  27. fishypants Moderator

    I don't find your axiom self-evidently true. There is controversy. So it needs proving. So go ahead and try to prove it.

    You're asserting it, so the burden of proof lies with you. Your job to support it, not my job to refute it.

    No. Disproven by counter-example: It's easy to think of physical items and goods that aren't manufactured by people. E.g the Sun. Or oil reserves. Or kittens.

    .... but there's some things that individual citizens are not legally allowed to make. Such as nuclear weapons, hard drugs, or fiat currency.

    I'm not aware of any ideas in 'natural law' or ethics that say individuals must be permitted to manufacture absolutely anything they are physically able to manufacture. Feel free to educate me with links.

    Here in the UK, no, I don't believe so.

    In the USA, I don't know. The US campaign-finance rules certainly need reform to make it less "he with the deepest pockets wins".



    The law on sock-ownership is very different to the law on nuclear-weapons-ownership.

    And I don't see any reason to think that that difference in law - between owning socks and owning nuclear weapons - is unfair or unjust. You can do a lot less damage with socks than with nukes.
  28. Random guy Member

    That does not make it true. An axiom is merely the basic "fact" that underlie a logical assumption. It can be true or false. An axiom is often thought to be equivalent to something be being "self evident", but this is not always true, nor are all self evident "facts" necessarily factual. Questioning axioms is philosophy 101.

    You are comparing apples and oranges. No CEO would ever need to do anything like that, since getting a blow job from an intern is neither newsworthy, nor illegal. In fact, a good portion of CEOs probably have gotten the Clinto treatment, see Also, most CEOs don't have command of a military force to go bomb with.

    Some do however, and I'm also sure there are CEOs out there who have had people murdered to hide their sexual exploits.

    'nother axiom?
  29. Hugh Bris Member

    I said:
    I wasn't trying to prove anything to you, merely giving you information to make understanding my point of view easier.
    That is the first sentences of a 900 page tome that talks about human action, what it is, what it means, what we can infer from it. An amazing scholarly look at human action in all its glory and ramification. I'm still working my way through it.

    When I find a way of looking at the world that gives deep insights into how people act, why, and all that, then I like that way of looking. NAP and the Human Action Axiom work for me. YMMV.
  30. Hugh Bris Member

    My mistake. All artifacts are made by people.
    But, when I capture the sun's ray with my solar panels, the power becomes mine. When I tap into the oil I become the owner by laws that have worked for centuries. (Common law, btw). And I buy a kitty at the Animal Shelter (though no person has ever truly owned a cat;) The cat owns them)

    Let me ask you: How do we acquire possession of goods legitimately?
    Again with the anthropomorphism. You are saying 'govt' or 'society' made those illegal, when in point of fact, one or a few men did the deed. So those are not laws so much as opinions.
    Well OK, how about John Locke?
    That pretty much says it.

    Not sure the people of Rotherham would agree with you. Police, those paid to protect the people, instead colluded, it appears, to allow horrid and tragic event so occur. I kept saying, it's the incentives. Police have incentives to act badly.

    The idea that politicians want to 'get money out of politics' is laughable. The reason to go into politics is power and money, or to do good (which is even more scary)
    say you! Not me. Ownership is ownership. See Locke.

    How many potential deaths must be on the table for you to ban something?

    I can kill one person at a time with my socks (choke them to death, stick it down their throats). I can kill multiple people with my screwdriver or kitchen knife. I can kill quite a few with my pistol. I can kill even more with my car. i can kill even more if I get into a private plane...

    How many potential deaths are required to ban something? Who gets to make the choice?
    And if 51 say ban and 49 say no, then what? Do the 51 get to use violence to stop the 49 simply from owning something? If no aggression has actually happened, wouldn't it be the 51 who are the criminals?
    • Like Like x 1
  31. fishypants Moderator

    OK, I agree that if you make something, it's yours. We could argue over your rights to the raw materials but lets not because it takes us away from the more interesting central theme which is:

    I'm not anthropomorphising. People can make decisions in groups. Groups of people exist and the people within them can work together on making a decision which becomes the decision of the group.

    See also:

    You'll need to be more specific.

    I don't see a natural right of "individuals must be allowed to manufacture anything they are physically capable of manufacturing" anywhere there.

    Definitely a police failing there, it's unarguable. Abolishing the police would make the situation as bad as that everywhere.

    No, I wasn't saying that. Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant that the Citizens United "Money is speech" ruling has the effect of selling US elections to whoever has the most money to buy them. So in a way, if you live in the USA, you're already in AnCapitstan! ;)

    Exactly. That's the interesting question.

    At one end of the scale you have "everyone including lunatics should be allowed to own anthrax"; at the other end of the scale you have "everyone including electricians is banned from owning screwdrivers".

    So the question is: where do you draw the line and why?

    I don't know the correct answer, but I feel intuitively that both extreme positions are incorrect, and that the line must be drawn somewhere in between. It can't make sense to say that children or lunatics have a right to own and use weapons of mass destruction.

    At the same time, I accept that the other end of the scale - ban everything which might be used as a weapon - is totalitarian.
    • Like Like x 1
  32. Random guy Member

    A work in human behaviour written by a philosopher and economist in 1949, before either ethology, medical psychiatry or neuro-biology became mainstream, can hardly be taken as the gospel of human behaviour. To be honest, science is still working out why we do the things we do, and there are a lot of unanswered questions.

    I think the best we can do is to say that a lot of human behaviour have some purpose at some level. Whether any of those actions refer to a level relevant for economy is another question entirely. A lot of human behaviour seems primarily preoccupied with reproduction, with very limited economic or political impact.
    • Like Like x 1
  33. Arct1ch3art Member

    View attachment 44f87c3e2798700a1dd3de95b596c6e8cf5f6767cddc7fe1c3
    • Like Like x 1
  34. fishypants Moderator

    Insofar as its philosophy rather than psychology, it being old doesn't make it wrong IMO. After all, Plato is old but still interesting.

    What makes it wrong is that it's wrong. ;) :) I'm always doing purposeless things.

    I was in a meeting the other day and this one fucker kept jiggling his foot for the entire 45 minutes, making a little squeeky-squeeky rubber-trainer-sole-on-floor noise the whole time. Seemed pretty damn purposeless to me.
  35. Arct1ch3art Member

    I hate that little squeeky-squeeky rubber-trainer-sole-on-floor noise, makes you want to show him a little magic trick"
    with a pencil...
    • Like Like x 1
  36. Random guy Member

    Not as much wrong as irrelevant. Using Mises as a guide to human behaviour is a bit like using any antique philosopher as a guide to modern astronomy. Sure they observed the planets wander, but they had no idea of how the solar system functions. Today planetary physics is a field of it's own, ans so is human behaviour.
  37. Hugh Bris Member

    Uh, might I suggest that if you haven't read about the subject, you might be a tad ignorant concerning the validity of it?

    I gotta say, this response is offputting. No understanding, and no curiosity, just attack.

  38. Quentinanon Member

    L. Ron Hubbard claimed he solved all the mysteries of human behaviour in 1951 in his book "Science of Survival". Here is a particular gem from that book demonstrating Hubbard's compassion and benevolence:
    "The sudden and abrupt deletion of all individuals occupying the lower bands of the tone scale from the social order would result in an almost instant rise in the cultural tone and would interrupt the dwindling spiral into which any society may have entered. It is not necessary to produce a world of clears in order to have a reasonable and worthwhile social order; it is only necessary to delete those individuals who range from 2.0 down, either by processing them enough to get their tone level above the 2.0 line — a task which, indeed, is not very great, since the amount of processing in many cases might be under fifty hours, although it might also in others be in excess of two hundred — or simply quarantining them from the society. A Venezuelan dictator [Juan Vicente Gómez] once decided to stop leprosy. He saw that most lepers in his country were also beggars. By the simple expedient of collecting and destroying all the beggars in Venezuela an end was put to leprosy in that country."
    • Like Like x 2
  39. Hugh Bris Member

    Fishy Pants,
    I see the hyenas are all on the hunt so let me make a few remarks and get out of Dodge.

    No collective can make a decision. Only the members of the collective.

    Think of the law. We don't say "The Purple Gang murdered Jim" we say "Bill, Art and Sam, who are members of the Purple Gang, murdered Jim."

    It's the same with groups, society, government: All acts can be attributed to a person or persons and it is important for accountability that e make this distinction.

    As for the point at which to ban. I think it's pretty clear. At the point the person attempts or does violate another persons rights.
  40. Random guy Member

    I wasn't planning in reading 900 pages of arcane economy just to debate you.

    You claimed all human actions are purposeful as an axiom, with Mises as your anchoring point for it's veracity. I am arguing that 1) it doesn't seem that way and 2) there's no way Mises could have known so anyway. If this is what he has based his philosophy on, it is likely to have some rather sizeable holes in it.

    I've read through the first couple of pages, and it strikes me that reading about Mises' praexology is a like reading human behaviour from a parallel dimension. There's absolute closed walls between praexology and the modern academic disciplines of human behaviour like anthropology, criminology, ethology and evolutionary psychology. At first glance praexology and modern human behavioural science they appear to be interchangeable, but they are not. Praexology is not subject to clinical experiments. It appear no praexologist ever brought a PET-scanner to have a look at what actually goes on when humans make decisions, no praexologist seems to have experimented with variations in decision makings across hormonal cycles, etc, because praexology is axiomatic. That makes it ... doubtful as a scientific conceptual tool.

    If you are going to argue from axioms you will have to do better.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins