"The right to bear arms"... where does this limit begin?

[heavenlyboy34]

What if they are not motivated by money? I don't remember who it was (Carnegie, maybe?), but some railroad mogul that owned a bunch of railways completely shut down because of a disagreement with someone. I can see it happening often on the local level.

Rational self-interest is not limited to money or even material things. Your example is not within a free/laissez-faire paradyme, so I don't see it as valid. Railroad moguls strongly tended to be in bed with local and federal governments.

As for why I believe the right to travel is a human right, I don't know. Why is the right to life a human right? Or the right to own property? They just are.

You can make a good "is" case for property and life, but without more evidence, a "travel right" is just an "ought".

 

[FSU63]

Rational self-interest is not limited to money or even material things. Your example is not within a free/laissez-faire paradyme, so I don't see it as valid. Railroad moguls strongly tended to be in bed with local and federal governments.


You can make a good "is" case for property and life, but without more evidence, a "travel right" is just an "ought".

Yes, but this was a completely private railroad network that cut off transportation for A LOT of people in New York, if I remember correctly.

Let's say that it DID happen, that these private roads trapped people. What would stop them?

As for the right to travel, multiple state supreme courts have ruled that it is a right, but even if they didn't, I think it's a right we deserve, whether it's a basic human right or not.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Yes, but this was a completely private railroad network that cut off transportation for A LOT of people in New York, if I remember correctly.

Let's say that it DID happen, that these private roads trapped people. What would stop them?

It seems that they would have a case for a lawsuit against the road builder.

As for the right to travel, multiple state supreme courts have ruled that it is a right, but even if they didn't, I think it's a right we deserve, whether it's a basic human right or not.

Courts in the past have ruled that some people can be property as well. So? Courts can make up all sorts of nonsense that isn't true in their decisions-and they routinely do.

 

[FSU63]

It seems that they would have a case for a lawsuit against the road builder.

As a private road owner, they have the right to deny anyone access to their property.

Courts in the past have ruled that some people can be property as well. So? Courts can make up all sorts of nonsense that isn't true in their decisions-and they routinely do.

Fair enough. Do you personally believe that people do not have the right to travel?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Fair enough. Do you personally believe that people do not have the right to travel?

Only in a very qualified way. That is, on their own proeprty or property made available to them by owners. I personally doubt that road owners would prevent people from using roads. There's much more money to be made from roadside advertising and such than in preventing relatively free travel.

 

[FSU63]

Only in a very qualified way. That is, on their own proeprty or property made available to them by owners. I personally doubt that road owners would prevent people from using roads. There's much more money to be made from roadside advertising and such than in preventing relatively free travel.

Again, not everyone is motivated by money. And preventing people from traveling DID occur. As said above, I believe it was Carnegie. So, let's say that, hypothetically, someone privately owned four roads, which each surrounded your house, and you had a dispute with them. Do you think it would be right to literally trap you inside your own house without any chance of legally getting out? Is that not a valid concern?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Again, not everyone is motivated by money. And preventing people from traveling DID occur. As said above, I believe it was Carnegie. So, let's say that, hypothetically, someone privately owned four roads, which each surrounded your house, and you had a dispute with them. Do you think it would be right to literally trap you inside your own house without any chance of legally getting out? Is that not a valid concern?

Sure it's a valid concern. (IIRC, Carnegie's corporation had State backing and wouldn't exist in the same way in the hypothetical society we're discussing, so I don't believe that's the best example for you)

ETA: though not everyone is directly motivated by money, it does limit what they can/can't do-so everyone is motivated by money to some extent.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Well, I'm assuming you're talking about minarchism (since, in an anarchist society, the second amendment wouldn't exist).

Well, I'm technically an ancap (relatively recent convert, but all the same), and I don't see why the second amendment couldn't exist in an ancap society (mind you, it probably wouldn't be necessary, but that's a different issue entirely.) That said, I don't see how whether or not we're talking about minarchy or anarchy makes a difference here in particular.

However, I don't believe that roads should be privatized. People have the right to travel, and the only viable way to travel today is on roads. So not ALL property should be privatized, IMO.

I disagree. I think HB34 presented my objection better than I could myself, so I'll simply leave you with his words.

But I don't think that walking around with grenade launchers ANYWHERE should be okay. I understand why we have the Second Amendment, but I think it would just be stupid to let people have ANY weapon with NO restrictions. The difference between an assault rifle and a rocket launcher is this:

With an assault rifle, yes, someone could kill 10 people, for example, before someone pulled out a gun and killed them. With a rocket launcher, someone could kill THOUSANDS from even just a rooftop before anyone could get to them. No matter what gun restrictions we have, or lack thereof, there will be gun crimes, but we need SOME, just like how I feel we need SOME government.

I'm willing to leave the debate of minarchism vs anarcho-capitalism for another time, but I don't see how this makes a difference here. Why are 10 deaths an acceptable price to pay but not 10,000? There's no rational line to be drawn here. Its completely arbitrary and stupid. With a nuke there actually is a logical reason, its not because hundreds of thousands MIGHT be killed, but because the weapon literally CAN'T be used in anything but a malicious manner.

All weapons can be used that way.

Yes, which is why the poster you responded to's argument is stupid, just like he is. The distinction for me is not whether a weapon can be misused. Any weapon, or indeed, anything, can. My argument is based on whether a weapon can be used acceptably.

Say you hunted me down and killed me with a machine gun (I know you wouldn't, but just for the sake of my argument.) A family member responds by hunting you down and killing you with a machine gun. Or, I use my machine gun to defend myself and I kill you before you can kill me. Ignoring issues of proof and courts and such, this is an acceptable, retaliatory used of a weapon.

Alternately, say you attack me by shooting a nuke at my house, and I respond by nuking yours. Despite the fact that my reaction seems proportionate, this is NOT a libertarian means of defending myself. You murdered thousands of people (at least) and I responded by murdering thousands of people (again, at least.)

My point is that there isn't a libertarian way to use a nuke to defend yourself or to retaliate against a criminal. If this is the case for other weapons, than its OK to ban them. But for most weapons, this is not the case.

I asked you why you believe this.

I don't believe private road owners would trap people in a truly free society, as it's not in their rational self-interest. Besides, the government can do the same if they decide they don't like you or want to build a project around your place...or even take your place outright via Eminent Domain. I've heard of people being forced to move because their cities allowed airports and other nuisances to be built too close to the residential zones.

Agreed.

Wait. Didn't Dr. Gaius Baltar acquire a nuclear bomb (from Admiral Adama) to construct a Cylon detector in the TV series Battlestar Galactica?

And. Countries that have Nukes seem to enjoy more homeland peace than countries that are "nukeless".

That's true. Also, in reality, governments act in rational self-interest (Note that by saying this I am not suggesting that their existence is morally justified). I'm not suggesting that wars to disarm nuclear powers, especially by other nuclear powers, are justified. And yes, nukes do act as a deterrent. There's nothing libertarian about this fact though. The threat of nuclear retalitation, while it might protect one from being attacked, is still a threat that cannot be carried out without violating the NAP.

 

[jmdrake]

This makes me wonder as well. While I certainly wouldn't mind people walking around with assault rifles, it would be a TERRIBLE idea to have people walking around with rocket launchers and nukes.

If we were ever invaded by a foreign power, citizens armed with rocket launchers would be quite useful. Nukes? Not so much. Honestly your belief on the 2nd amendment really depends on your view of the "militia clause" in the 2nd amendment. Remember Thomas Jefferson considered standing armies to be as dangerous to liberty as a central bank. And if the 2nd amendment really is meant to be a last defense against tyranny then what defense is there against tyrants in tanks?

 

[FSU63]

If we were ever invaded by a foreign power, citizens armed with rocket launchers would be quite useful. Nukes? Not so much. Honestly your belief on the 2nd amendment really depends on your view of the "militia clause" in the 2nd amendment. Remember Thomas Jefferson considered standing armies to be as dangerous to liberty as a central bank. And if the 2nd amendment really is meant to be a last defense against tyranny then what defense is there against tyrants in tanks?

I don't know what our defense would be. I'm torn. On one hand, I realize that mass killings would become pretty common, as it would be so easy to acquire things like grenade launchers. On the other hand, the only true way to protect ourselves from the government and military would be to have nukes. But I shouldn't even have to point out the problem there.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

If we were ever invaded by a foreign power, citizens armed with rocket launchers would be quite useful. Nukes? Not so much. Honestly your belief on the 2nd amendment really depends on your view of the "militia clause" in the 2nd amendment. Remember Thomas Jefferson considered standing armies to be as dangerous to liberty as a central bank. And if the 2nd amendment really is meant to be a last defense against tyranny then what defense is there against tyrants in tanks?

Anti-tank weapons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Anti-tank_weapons

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I don't know what our defense would be. I'm torn. On one hand, I realize that mass killings would become pretty common, as it would be so easy to acquire things like grenade launchers. On the other hand, the only true way to protect ourselves from the government and military would be to have nukes. But I shouldn't even have to point out the problem there.

I wouldn't go that far. There's plenty of options that work well in this sort of situation. I don't see any "good" (morally and as a solid strategy) way to use nukes as a defense. I'm open to considering arguments, though.

 

[Acala]

I love this question! Governments invented nuclear weapons, only governments have ever built, stockpiled, or used nuclear weapons, but the fact that government invented nuclear weapons is apparently justification for government to limit individual freedom. And the ban on private ownership of nuclear weapons will be enforced by the most violent, corrupt entity that ever existed on the face of the planet because, you know, my neighbor might build a nuke. Lol.

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

Where exactly does right end?

The constitution provides, at least, that the public should have enough "arms" to overcome a "military force":

During the 1788 ratification debates, ... It was understood across the political spectrum that the right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2739870581644084946

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

The government has no authority to infringe upon our right to bear arms in order to defend themselves.

Nuclear weapons and similar WMD's are different because they are used to murder individuals who may be innocent bystanders.

Rifles and handguns are "used to murder individuals who may be innocent bystanders" too, but I don't think that factor is enough to overcome our 2nd-Amendment right.

The point of the 2nd Amendment is to enable the people to overcome a "military force". When defense is necessary on a military scale, people will be killed who you might consider "innocent bystanders". If you want to call this "murder", the blame lies on the people who made the defense necessary.

 

[FSU63]

Rifles and handguns are "used to murder individuals who may be innocent bystanders" too, but I don't think that factor is enough to overcome our 2nd-Amendment right.

The point of the 2nd Amendment is to enable the people to overcome a "military force". When defense is necessary on a military scale, people will be killed who you might consider "innocent bystanders". If you want to call this "murder", the blame lies on the people who made the defense necessary.

But, in order to truly overcome our own military force, we'd need nukes.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I love this question! Governments invented nuclear weapons, only governments have ever built, stockpiled, or used nuclear weapons, but the fact that government invented nuclear weapons is apparently justification for government to limit individual freedom. And the ban on private ownership of nuclear weapons will be enforced by the most violent, corrupt entity that ever existed on the face of the planet because, you know, my neighbor might build a nuke. Lol.

I agree that its not likely that anyone would. I agree that government shouldn't exist, at that. I haven't speculated too much on how I think such a thing could be enforced, because ultimately I don't claim to know how a free market society would work. Maybe signing a contract saying you won't build nukes would be a requirement that is generally expected to use private roads. Maybe owning a nuke would simply be considered a violation of the NAP, much like threatening your neighbor with violence if he doesn't do X is a violation of the NAP. Maybe this issue wouldn't come up at all. Who knows? I agree that you can't trust the government here, either. But philosophically, I do think there's a difference between a rifle, or even a rocket launcher, and an ICBM. I think you can too.

Rifles and handguns are "used to murder individuals who may be innocent bystanders" too, but I don't think that factor is enough to overcome our 2nd-Amendment right.

The point of the 2nd Amendment is to enable the people to overcome a "military force". When defense is necessary on a military scale, people will be killed who you might consider "innocent bystanders". If you want to call this "murder", the blame lies on the people who made the defense necessary.

The key word is "May". Rifles and handguns "May" be used against innocents, or maybe not. Same with most other weapons. But nukes WILL be used against innocents. There's simply no other way they could be used. Hence why their ownership in a free society is incompatible with a free society. Because their very existence is intrinsically a threat to violate the NAP. That isn't the case for an AK47, or a tank, or etc.

If you think threatening violence should be legal, that's one thing. But if not (conventional libertarian theory does allow banning the threat of NAP violations as well as the violations themselves) I don't see how owning an ICBM, however absurdly unlikely, would NOT be a violation of the "no threatening people" ordinance.

Good conversation, BTW. Food for thought on all sides.

 

[Bohner]

This makes me wonder as well. While I certainly wouldn't mind people walking around with assault rifles, it would be a TERRIBLE idea to have people walking around with rocket launchers and nukes.

TBF... If I was going to go postal and try to kill as many people as possible, a rocket launcher would be the last thing I'd want. Too heavy, too conspicuous, takes WAAY to long to reload and you can only carry a very limited amount of ammo. Their only real effective use would be to fire at armored vehicles and there aren't too many of those around. You'd be much better off with an AR and a set of handguns.

 

[jmdrake]

Anti-tank weapons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Anti-tank_weapons

Right. Just about everything on your list is a rocket launcher. Someone questioned whether the second amendment included rocket launchers. So my point is that if the 2nd amendment is for defending against tanks and the best defense against a tank is a rocket launcher....okay, I guess I should have spelled it out a little more.

 

[FSU63]

TBF... If I was going to go postal and try to kill as many people as possible, a rocket launcher would be the last thing I'd want. Too heavy, too conspicuous, takes WAAY to long to reload and you can only carry a very limited amount of ammo. Their only real effective use would be to fire at armored vehicles and there aren't too many of those around. You'd be much better off with an AR and a set of handguns.

Not if you shoot at high-rise buildings.

Though, to be honest, I've always wondered how all of these mass murderers are so...bad at killing people. Obviously, I'm glad they are, but if I ever decided to go on some crazy killing rampage with assault rifles, I'd like to think 100+ people wouldn't be out of the question.