The Question Thread

[Fred]

I'd have already thought the same  thing - cunt.. go away!

[Cognitive Dissident]

Atomic weapons are they only way you can defend yourself against your own government, so why not? It's technically not illegal to have them, per the Constitution.

Can't do it without killing/hurting countless people who have not aggressed against you.

You can still have countless victims, it'd just take longer.

It's a tricky question, but just another one of those "so far out there" that it ultimately makes little difference.

You do the violence, you're responsible for it.  Setting off an a-bomb makes you responsible for the lives of everyone you kill--and certainly those you killed who weren't involved.  You can't duck that.

[Cognitive Dissident]

You're sitting in a restaurant and your child has been screaming for 15 minutes. Everyone around is obviously annoyed.

A person approaches you and suggests that you could try taking the child outside (it's a nice day) for a bit to let her cry it out.

What's your response?

You shouldn't be there to hear it.  You should already be outside disciplining your child.

[anarchir]

Ugh, I hear ya. Ate at the Golden Corral (american buffet) tonight with my woman. It reminded me of why sometimes people suck, and why my girlfriend and I never want to have kids. Teach your kid how to fucking behave itself! Also, I saw a woman at the buffet cough into her hands, then lick her fingers, then go around putting food on her plate. UGH INDEED  Not to mention the kids wandering out of control, coughing and sneezing and eating around the buffet. Wouldnt be surprised if I got really fucking sick after eating there.

[The ghost of a ghost of a ghost]

I wouldn't do that again.
I cut out the buffet years ago.
Not worth it.
Having worked food and bev. myself, don't think behind kitchen doors there is necessarily a high degree of sanitation.

[hellbilly]

You're sitting in a restaurant and your child has been screaming for 15 minutes. Everyone around is obviously annoyed.

A person approaches you and suggests that you could try taking the child outside (it's a nice day) for a bit to let her cry it out.

What's your response?

You shouldn't be there to hear it.  You should already be outside disciplining your child.

Agreed.

Instead though, when I pointed out everyone complaining, the woman said "Let them complain." Then when the kid stopped crying to listen to the strange man talking to her mom, the other lady said "See? She stop cryin'." I pointed out that it was because there was a diversion. Then I had to explain what "diversion" meant. Then the other lady said "I don't want to go to jail today." Then I rolled my eyes and left the two ladies (I'm guessing their combined weight to be about 600 pounds) finish their meal. Then I made some new friends with the people at the next table. Then I had a muffin.

I don't think I was out of line but the ladies seemed irate with me.

- this was actually at a buffet. A soup n' salad place. Been a regular for a decade and the nice Russian ladies run a clean shop!

[LTKoblinsky]

You're sitting in a restaurant and your child has been screaming for 15 minutes. Everyone around is obviously annoyed.

A person approaches you and suggests that you could try taking the child outside (it's a nice day) for a bit to let her cry it out.

What's your response?

You shouldn't be there to hear it.  You should already be outside disciplining your child.

a buffet sounds nice right now. I've got a young son (look left) and we went to Outback once. Just as our food arrived, he started fussing. Did we let him fuss and annoy everyone else in the crowded restaurant? No, we got to-go boxes, packed up, went back home and ate it cold. Why am I blowing my own trumpet? To let you know that for every visible kid screaming in public there are other parents who make good neighbors.

Agreed.

Instead though, when I pointed out everyone complaining, the woman said "Let them complain." Then when the kid stopped crying to listen to the strange man talking to her mom, the other lady said "See? She stop cryin'." I pointed out that it was because there was a diversion. Then I had to explain what "diversion" meant. Then the other lady said "I don't want to go to jail today." Then I rolled my eyes and left the two ladies (I'm guessing their combined weight to be about 600 pounds) finish their meal. Then I made some new friends with the people at the next table. Then I had a muffin.

I don't think I was out of line but the ladies seemed irate with me.

- this was actually at a buffet. A soup n' salad place. Been a regular for a decade and the nice Russian ladies run a clean shop!

[freeAgent]

With respect to the question on what to do about atom bombs, I would be fine keeping them illegal.  There are really no legitimate self-defense uses for such a weapon.  If the statist wants to go after you for being logically inconsistent based on your stated principles, it shouldn't be hard to come up with examples of statist inconsistencies to counter with.  I come at libertarianism from a more utilitarian perspective, which doesn't make support of a ban on weapons of mass destruction a logically inconsistent position in the first place.  That's not to say that utilitariansim is without fault, but it does a pretty good job in these kinds of scenarios.

[Cognitive Dissident]

With respect to the question on what to do about atom bombs, I would be fine keeping them illegal.  There are really no legitimate self-defense uses for such a weapon.  If the statist wants to go after you for being logically inconsistent based on your stated principles, it shouldn't be hard to come up with examples of statist inconsistencies to counter with.  I come at libertarianism from a more utilitarian perspective, which doesn't make support of a ban on weapons of mass destruction a logically inconsistent position in the first place.  That's not to say that utilitariansim is without fault, but it does a pretty good job in these kinds of scenarios.

Much like abortions, I doubt they can be effectively (or, practically) banned, in a truly free society.  However, I think they're immoral (which wasn't all that clear to me until someone pointed out how indiscriminately they kill), and if there is no state, there doesn't seem to be much point in it.

[Bradley]

Recently I got into a discussion with what seemed like a statist.

We got into the subject of guns and self defence. I stated that it's my right to have a gun, in order to defend myself. If it's morally right for a so called police to have a gun, then it's morally right for me as well.

He then played the atom-bomb card. "So where's the line? Why stop with guns? Is everyone allowed to have their own atombomb? Do you have the right to acquire an atom bomb as well?."

Now this is ridiculous because an atombomb can't arguably be used in self defense without killing lots of innocent people as well. And without governments the atom bomb wouldn't exist to begin with. So in a way it's a highly hypothetical scenario, and those are generally useless to discuss.

I asked him "what hell would I need an atom bomb for?!"

And I have to admit what he did then got me cornered, because he simply took it back to argument from morality.

"Yes but are you allowed to have an atom bomb, is it your right??"

Me: Yes.

So guys I'd appreciate some help here. How is it morally logically consistent, coming from the volountarist/scientifically viewpoint of morality (Stefan Molyneux style) to say that it's ok to have a gun, but not an atom bomb? (Not that I said that)

If you say that everyone has a right to their own gun, doesn't that also mean, if one is logically consistent, that atomb bombs are ok as well? Mustn't everyone be allowed to own their own atomb bomb if they'd like, and no one has the right to stop them from constructing one?

If it's true that atom bombs are OK, sure that makes me a bit nervous. However, it makes me more nervous that some have the right to have atom bombs, and some have not, as is currently the case. Maybe it's not a right to own an atom bomb, but it's not anyone else's right to come take it away from you? Two wrongs doesn't make one right.

Two answers off the top of my head:

1) You don't have to be consistent, and have every right to draw a line in the sand arbitrarily with what you think people should be allowed to own.

Isn't this what we are all against? Isn't that what the state is doing currently? They say you own your property, unless you stop paying property taxes. You either own something or you don't, there's no in between. Dosen't what you are saying make you morally corrupt?

I want to be logically consistent. Being logically consistent is good, inconsistency is bad, we all know that. It's called double standards. How can you persuade others if your moral is not true?

Or, when you are saying "think", do you mean that I can say I think someone shouldn't be allowed to own atom bombs, but that I doesn't give me the right to forcily steal it from someone if he chooses to own/build one?

If so that's useful and I will use it next time the atom-bomb card is played.

[Bradley]

I recently got to know that my little brother, 15, is considering police-high school. Basically it prepares the students as a life of cop, military. It's for those that has that that a goal, not just to learn leadership in itself. Not that cops are true leaders. My brother has been talking about wanting to become a cop, but I can tell he is uncertain.

Obviously time is of the essence guys, I'm travelling to my parents house in under 2h to be able tp speak to him face to face tonight.

How do I convince him not to?

My plan is to use the argument from morality as my major tool. To point out the immorality, control and double standard the government has. Recently there was also an incident in school were the teachers and principals really overplayed what happened and blamed him. It was about obedience. I know how this made him feel.  

edit: also to ask him what his definition of what a police is, and then compare that to the most correct definition. then he will realise it's not what he thinks, and immoral

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

Encourage him to become a peace officer.  We need good guys on the inside too.

[Bradley]

Interesting. And I'm glad that it's you Sam I'm having the conversation with.

What's the difference? Wikipedia "police officer" redirects to Law enforcement officer. Is a security guard at a mall a police officer? Or a bouncer at a night club?

Have I understand you correctly that you are saying that I shouldn't even try to persuade him out of going to this school?

[Cognitive Dissident]

What's the difference? Wikipedia "police officer" redirects to Law enforcement officer. Is a security guard at a mall a police officer? Or a bouncer at a night club?

Met someone locally studying criminal justice to get a peace officer license to become a bail bounty hunter.  I can respect that.

[Fred]

Encourage him to become a peace officer.  We need good guys on the inside too.

Agreed!