tod evans
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2008
- Messages
- 36,071
"The right to bear arms"... where does this limit begin?
- Thread starter NewUser
- Start date
Suzanimal
Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2012
- Messages
- 33,385
Citizens should be able to own anything the government can own, couldn't be any worse than the nut jobs in DC having them.
This is a little bit worrying isn't it? I don't know if I like the idea of a person owning such a powerful vessel...
pcosmar
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 54,940
I don't like the idea of Governments owning them. But reality is such.
Tod
Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2011
- Messages
- 5,062
That is a dilemma I have not yet resolved in my own mind regarding an anarchic society. I can easily see a situation where someone's neighbors don't like them and refuse to give permission to cross their property, trapping them on their own land. One easy scenario would be racially based....a person buys property in a location surrounded by people of another race and when the neighbors find out they trap the person either on or off their property.
The idea of everything being owned by someone doesn't sit well with me. I like the idea of being able to move about on land that is owned by no one, answering to no one.
DamianTV
Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2007
- Messages
- 20,677
You dont need Ron Paul to tell you to not use drugs if drugs are legalized. Likewise, you dont need ANYONE to tell you dont give a loaded gun to a two year old. Much of it comes from Personal Responsibility. I will not allow you to decree for me what those limits should be, and resisting arbitrary demands for me to turn in my guns is something that will be matched with force. Your responsibility can only include you and your family, but does not extend to me. Non Aggression Principle. Pretty easy to understand. I'll leave you completely alone, and whether or not you decide to own a gun for Self Defense against others who would intend you harm, and you leave me alone to make the same decision for myself. But hiding behind other people with guns to take away my rights to have a gun or not is not much different than you directly imposing arbitrary limits on me.
You dont own me. Take a hike.
osan
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2009
- Messages
- 16,867
Citizens should be able to own anything the government can own, couldn't be any worse than the nut jobs in DC having them.
[/IMG]
We now know where The Mask ended up.
Somebody stop me!
osan
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2009
- Messages
- 16,867
I'm with you on this. First of all, if we get to the metaphysical heart of things, we don't OWN anything. We may legitimately claim right to acquire, use, and dispose, but that is really more a stewardship deal. That aside, the standard false dichotomy is that either everything is owned privately or there is a mix of that with common ownership, i.e. everybody owns the rest as one. How about NOBODY owns some of the rest, providing a third option.
This mad rush to "claim" territory is morbid, IMO.
The other problem we face is that of the finite nature of the world in the context of an ever expanding population. This is a true zero-sum game, the truth of which is not apparent when populations are small. But as they grow ever larger, the effects of shrinking per-capita land ratios begins to be felt. We are in the middle of this now and it manifests in all manner of ways. One example is the troubles people have in NJ with black bears. There was a time nobody ever saw or heard of a black bear in NJ. But as people expanded their numbers every more deeply into the last remaining bear habitats, the bears were faced with a choice: adapt or die. They chose not to die, and so now people have bears digging dens under their houses to hibernate, raise young, and so forth.
Contrary to the apparently unsound views some here seem to hold on the topic, I firmly believe that planet has a limited natural human carrying capacity and we are probably close to it. I assert this with some confidence on my reasonably assured belief that were the artificial augmentations of food production to suddenly disappear, at least one billion people would be dead of starvation and related causes within one year - and that is being VERY optimistic, fully double that or more being readily imaginable. Most people have no idea by how tenuous a thread their daily lives hang. Let petroleum stop flowing and the availability of gasoline will be the very least of your problems. No artificial fertilizer guarantees death to billions.
One mitigating factor, in a sense, is lifestyle. Were people to cut the shit with their idiotic obsessions over lawn maintenance and plant food plots in place of grass, mass starvation could be avoided to a considerable degree. But they don't and won't, so if and when the oil spigot runs dry all those people will be up the creek without a paddle in a leaky boat. C'est la guerre, I suppose.
EDIT: BTW, I always seem to recall the poster here who once wrote years ago that he believed the planet could easily carry 100 billion humans and that he looked forward to the day. Just to illustrate how barking mad that position really is, were we to evenly distribute that many bodies across the land area of the planet, it would pack to a density of about 1739 people per square mile, which is notably tight though not overwhelmingly so. This, of course, leaves no room for any other living being much larger than a house cat to live in non-domestic conditions and there would no wilderness whatsoever of which to speak.
If we grant that at least 25% of the planet is unfit to inhabit, the packing density rises to 2318, which gives each person about a quarter acre, including roadways and all that. Misery.
Yes, we could pack them like sardines into cities, but the sprawl would be horrific and people would eat each other out of the pure frustration and discomfort such compression would bring. It would be mere existence, vis-a-vis life, and it would be a wholesale nightmare.
Yes... 100 billions. Jesus.
Last edited:
