The case against guns

[Coito ergo sum]

A bit over the top, Jonno. Sure, we need government, but I'd like to keep the "controls" to some sort of reasonable, minimal set

Reasonable is quite hard to define, what is the role of government whatever the people want it to be??

Yes, since government is a creation of the people, then it ought to be what the people want it to be.

[Coito ergo sum]

"Libertarianism is 'evil?'"

Really? Please tell me you can't be that stupid.

Isn't the black and white thinking of "good" and "evil" the kind of simplicity believers try to boil everything down to? Nice work.

Actually, it is THAT stupid to believe that a society can survive without a gummint given adequate means to enforce the laws and ensure the citizens' safety.
Any form of government that predicts to be ideal without factoring human nature in is moronic... libertarianism and modern representative democracy among others.

Marxism posits society surviving without a gummint. Libertarianism, generally speaking, does not. Libertarianism posits minimal government intervention, but most Libertarians understand that capitalism can only really exist with a government.

[Seth]

Since you don't understand the concept embraced by "force or fraud," you might want to present some examples that puzzle you about how Libertarianism might deal with specific social issues and I'll try to tell you how the Libertarian philosophy deals with such issues

Someone forces themselves into living in a country, thinking they have some automatic right to do so , they doesn't agree with the charges (taxes) put on him by the people already living in so decides to steal from that country by refusing to pay up

They are denied access to the benefits they refuse to pay for.

]Your very existence is an act of force, taking oxygen and breathing out disease

If you suffer from an airborne-transmissible disease you are exactly correct, and it is your responsibility to avoid initiating that force on others by either quarantining yourself or taking appropriate precautions to prevent the spread of disease. If you refuse, you can be forcibly quarantined as an act of self defense by the community and you may incur penalties for harming others.

[Seth]

A bit over the top, Jonno. Sure, we need government, but I'd like to keep the "controls" to some sort of reasonable, minimal set

Reasonable is quite hard to define, what is the role of government whatever the people want it to be??

Yes, since government is a creation of the people, then it ought to be what the people want it to be.

Within limits. What you describe is tyranny of the majority.

[MrJonno]

If you suffer from an airborne-transmissible disease you are exactly correct, and it is your responsibility to avoid initiating that force on others by either quarantining yourself or taking appropriate precautions to prevent the spread of disease. If you refuse, you can be forcibly quarantined as an act of self defense by the community and you may incur penalties for harming others.

You are permanently breathing out germs, most are relatively harmless some can kill. Generally we don't lock up people for having a cold but have no doubt breathing is initiating force

[Seth]

If you suffer from an airborne-transmissible disease you are exactly correct, and it is your responsibility to avoid initiating that force on others by either quarantining yourself or taking appropriate precautions to prevent the spread of disease. If you refuse, you can be forcibly quarantined as an act of self defense by the community and you may incur penalties for harming others.

You are permanently breathing out germs, most are relatively harmless some can kill. Generally we don't lock up people for having a cold but have no doubt breathing is initiating force

It is if doing so harms another.

[Coito ergo sum]

A bit over the top, Jonno. Sure, we need government, but I'd like to keep the "controls" to some sort of reasonable, minimal set

Reasonable is quite hard to define, what is the role of government whatever the people want it to be??

Yes, since government is a creation of the people, then it ought to be what the people want it to be.

Within limits. What you describe is tyranny of the majority.

No it isn't. It's the preamble to the US Constitution, embodying the notion that all just power comes from people and that the power of the government is derived from the consent of the governed.

[Seth]

A bit over the top, Jonno. Sure, we need government, but I'd like to keep the "controls" to some sort of reasonable, minimal set

Reasonable is quite hard to define, what is the role of government whatever the people want it to be??

Yes, since government is a creation of the people, then it ought to be what the people want it to be.

Within limits. What you describe is tyranny of the majority.

No it isn't. It's the preamble to the US Constitution, embodying the notion that all just power comes from people and that the power of the government is derived from the consent of the governed.

Well, yes, but as I said, within limits.

[JimC]

Since you don't understand the concept embraced by "force or fraud," you might want to present some examples that puzzle you about how Libertarianism might deal with specific social issues and I'll try to tell you how the Libertarian philosophy deals with such issues

Someone forces themselves into living in a country, thinking they have some automatic right to do so , they doesn't agree with the charges (taxes) put on him by the people already living in so decides to steal from that country by refusing to pay up

Your very existence is an act of force, taking oxygen and breathing out disease

That is becoming a bit weird...

[MrJonno]

That is becoming a bit weird...

Just showing how the idea that no one should initiate force is a moronic concept. Human beings are all linked and all our actions including breathing harm others. The question is not whether we can cause harm to others (you can't avoid it) but how much is society will allow it to run efficiently.

While colds can be totally deadly to people who are vulnerable they are so common we don't arrest people who infect and kill people even if they were (morally) negligent. I personal wouldn't risk going to see my wife's 94 gran with a cold if I was sneezing but it wouldnt be a crime if I did and I spread an infection that killed her

[Collector1337]

That is becoming a bit weird...

Just showing how the idea that no one should initiate force is a moronic concept. Human beings are all linked and all our actions including breathing harm others. The question is not whether we can cause harm to others (you can't avoid it) but how much is society will allow it to run efficiently.

While colds can be totally deadly to people who are vulnerable they are so common we don't arrest people who infect and kill people even if they were (morally) negligent. I personal wouldn't risk going to see my wife's 94 gran with a cold if I was sneezing but it wouldnt be a crime if I did and I spread an infection that killed her

Yes, your breathing does indeed harm me. I'm going to have to ask that you please stop.

[Blind groper]

The key to all these arguments is balance. Total freedom of the individual is wrong, since it permits that person to harm others. Total control of the individual is also wrong. A balance is needed between those two extremes. Where we put the balance point is, of course, fodder for a million heated arguments.

[Seth]

. I personal wouldn't risk going to see my wife's 94 gran with a cold if I was sneezing but it wouldnt be a crime if I did and I spread an infection that killed her

It should be, even if you do it negligently. Indeed it IS if it can be proven that you knew you were infectious with a deadly disease (like AIDS) and failed to take proper precautions to prevent the spread of the disease. There are in fact specific laws making such acts, even ones that are merely negligent and not intentional, a felony with serious jail time.

So, if you had a contagious disease, let's say influenza, and you went to Gran's house knowing you were contagious with the intent or hope of making Gran sick and hoping she might die so you could get your inheritance, you could indeed be arrested, charged and convicted of murder.

Bacteria can be just as much of a weapon as a pistol.

[Seth]

The key to all these arguments is balance. Total freedom of the individual is wrong, since it permits that person to harm others. Total control of the individual is also wrong. A balance is needed between those two extremes. Where we put the balance point is, of course, fodder for a million heated arguments.

Backing off your totalitarian argument I see. You're right, except that NOBODY on my side of the argument has EVER argued for "total freedom of the individual." Ever.

Therefore, your implied criticism of our arguments is a strawman fallacy.

[Blind groper]

Seth

My comments about balance were not specifically directed at you. Just an effort to bring sanity back to this argument.

And no. I am not a supporter of totalitarian control, and never have been. My political philosophy is about balance and avoiding extreme views, plus focussing on facts.

That is why I have not argued for any total gun bans. Just for a ban on the sector that causes the greatest harm, meaning hand guns.