Jump to content

labmath2

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    661

  • Joined

 Content Type 

Everything posted by labmath2

  1. labmath2
    I do not know if this has been addressed here (will read the entire thread later), but the problem i continue to have with self ownership is that ownership is either assumed (not properly defined), or its defined in such a way that makes it useless outside of self ownership (ownership is control. Obviously you do not own something simply because you physically control it like a car). The standard definition of owneship is a tautology, so it doesn't resolve the problem. The performative contradiction of arguing against self ownership also hinges on precise definition.
  2. labmath2
    Dsayers just call in and discuss this with Stef. I would like to hear that conversation.
  3. labmath2
    I didn't want to post anymore, but i can't help ot here. I think people are not being clear on what the initiation of force is. The initial question "is it the initiation of force if you have no physical contact with someone or their property" and in addition did not coerce someone else into doing so. When does support become itself the initiation of force. Take the man who is standing there cheering for rapists is he initiating force against anyone? Can he be held responsible for the rapist's choice because he cheered? Even if he offers the rapist advice on how to get away with it, does that count as initiation of force. I thought i understood what initiation of the use of force meant (dont rape, assault, murder, violate property right) but now its clear that i do not.
  4. labmath2
    It seems you are making the claim that parents are resposible for their childrens criminality. Would you care to put up the evidence for that claim. The analogy with inanimate objects does little ti resolve the issue. On the voluntary exchange thing, by defiition if i want something, then i think its better for me than the alternative. What i am talking about is not imdividuals voluntarily exchaging goods and services, but a free market society. If you define a free market society as one deviod of force, then yes it would be better, but how do we eliminate all force. The point is none of us knows what that world looks like, so you cannot make any claims about that world. Again you can still argue that violations of NAP is immoral. No where in here did i say child abuse was good nor use of force acceptable. My argument is simply about making claims about a world we haven't experienced nor have evidence for what such world would look like.
  5. labmath2
    How do i know the statement is true, because it is a tautology. Hypothetical (merriam webster) involving or based on an idea or theory. Once the outcome is demonstrated it becomes practical (certain). On the second point, your point is well taken. I realize now my language was not very accurate in presenting what i understood mentally. It would be more accurate to say your claim must be supported by evidence. Yes, the world would be different if everyone practiced peaceful parenting, but the evidence is not there for some of the claims i have seen people make. This means if your evidence shows cause and efffect, then you can make a cause claim. If it is correlation, you can make a correlation claim. To reiterate, your claim cannot go beyond your evidence. Thanks for the quesions, it actually helped me clarify what i mean.
  6. labmath2
    You know what, i read the link and now i know. Its the first time i have ever read of someone stopping a mass shooting and its amazing that they dont get more publicity. Here i will admit i was wrong, having a gun could prevent mass shooting. Guess you learn something new everyday.
  7. labmath2
    Look up the standard definitions of hypothetical and theoretial, if you still dont have your answer, then i will indulge.
  8. labmath2
    Unless i am remembering wrong, none of those material go as far as to say parents are responsible for their childrens criminality. The strongest evidence is correlation and even that doesn't explain a lot. I don't mind people going as far as the evidence is available in showing violence is correlated with child abuse, but that is not child abuse causes violence. Unless i am missing some important study that does say that. On the free market, of course its better to voluntarily engage than to be forced, but there is no gurantee that there won't be violators. If we have a free market, then one person steals, is it still a free market? How many violations of the NAP has to occur before its no longer a free market? Free markets are defined by the general adherence of the individuals in the market to free market principles. For comparison, the outlawing of slavery does not mean there won't be slaves (as in fact some people kidnap others today and make them their sex slaves), its the general adherence of the population to a non slave society that makes it so. So likewise, we cannot know what such a world would look llke. In an ideal world all parents would provide the best care to their children and there will be no violations of NAP. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that such a world is possible and i would very much like to avoid such claims.
  9. labmath2
    Hypotheticals are purely theoretical unless you can show causal links that show that the outcome isn't merely possible, but certain. I think David Hume has an interesting discussion on this when he talked about induction. So when someone brings up how the economy will be better (better in the context of some measurable criteria) in a free market, you have to provide causal link that validates the claim. Even the notion that the world would be a different place if people simply practiced peaceful parenting is hypothetical. Unless there is data showing either causal link or correlation (it has to be reliable data), the hypothetical is just conjecture. I look forward to your feedback.
  10. labmath2
    I agree with you Alan that spending does not create economic growth, but that is because of the way you and I have defined economic growth (increase in effeciency of production). Economic growth now colloquially refers to employment. So when they say we will reach full capacity in 2017, they mean we will reach full employment.
  11. labmath2
    It started at the formation of the country when some individuals had more rights than others.
  12. labmath2
    On the peaceful parenting argument, i thonk you understand that what the world would look like is purely hypothetical, so i am not sure why its a strawman to point that out. It is more accurate to forward that no one should initiate force against children without adding that it would reduce violence. The argiment is sound on its own. The comment on cars is to show that even when it comes to cars (as a parralel) for guns, there are regulations, so the notion that no one is trying to ban cars may not be an apt analogy. Since by that standard they could also create as many regulatios as they think is necessary on guns (including registration, insurance, license). I am not claiming its not initiation of force.
  13. labmath2
    While i do not think some of the laws surrounding cars may necessarily create safety, here are a few. Registering your car, required insurance, drivers license, seat belt (i dont drive, so those are the only ones i can think of). Again, i think peaceful parenting goes a long way, but i dont think anyone knows what that world would look like so its not a particularly convincing argument.
  14. labmath2
    The difficulty with drawing a parralel with gun is that millions of people across the country use cars to get from one place to another. Also there is already immense regulations surrounding cars and people continue to look for new ways to make them safer.
  15. labmath2
    That is a tough question to answer. I think group behavior is slightly different from individual behavior. Culture is a form of group behavior. No one makes up their own language since the goal of language is to engage others. Maybe you can clarify a bit more.
  16. labmath2
    Also criminals adapt.
  17. labmath2
    I recently realized that is not a very good position to start from. It may well be the case that people will be very different if some changes were made, but its purely hypothetical. Until such a world exists, people want solution for the world we live in. Which makes the argument about how people will sell guns also unknowable. As it stands right now, i imagine there are different kinds of gun dealers, from those who intentionally sell to criminals to those who already follow all those practices you described. I am curious about many things people can use to kill people, luckily most of them are either conspicuous (such as sword, bow), takes a bit of effort to be lethal (knife) or has some daily utility outside of killing people (cars). The one i am most concerned about at the moment though is drones. Drones make guns look like knives. Its unfortunate that anybody has it, but i am not in a position to do anything about it.
  18. labmath2
    Can you please link mass shooting averted by law abiding gn owners? (I have never actually heard of one. Maybe i should look it up) The person that wants all guns banned is probably very irrational. The point of my inquiry is to see if there is any wiggle room. Here are a few broad questions on gun ownership. Should individuals known to be connected to criminal enterprises (including terrorist groups) be allowed purchase assault weapons? Should individuals with history of violence and psychiatric problems be given the same access to firearms as everyone else? Shold there be a limit to the type of weapon individuals are allowed to own (this question goes beyond guns)?
  19. labmath2
    I actually like your post. You presented the idea better than me. While i have no opinion on gun laws, i do find it fascinating that you think gun restrictions are insane. Everyone thinks they know the perfect distribution of gun ownership that minimizes deaths, but proof is hard to come by. Maybe the outcome is irrelevant to you as long as long as the process is just.
  20. labmath2
    The point is to show that collectives do exist. When you are having a conversation with someone, you know they are made of cells which are made of molecules which are made of atoms which are made of particles. I do not think you regularly turn to tables and have conversations with the particles. Some things exist because those individuals exist as part of a cillective. Forest isn't just trees, its a particular way in which they are organized to produce an ecosystem. A man on an island needs no laws, in fact with enough barrier to interaction between individuals, you will not have a society. Maybe what you mean is that this particular set of collective produces no special feature distinct from the individual, but evolutionary biology will refute that positions since populations evolve, not individuals.
  21. labmath2
    There is no moral consideration unless we are proposing what should be done. This conversation is about what is (or likely would be in an alternative world). I put forward the propositiom that this is an instance where everone having a gun could potentially cause more arm (in line with the liberal position that guns allow criminals to much more effectively murder their victims). Its also possible he pulls out his gun and someone notices and shoots him before he kills anyone and everyone else realizes the person lying dead is the criminal. Most of the real world examples i know of people confronting criminals with guns involve the criminal commiting a crime that takes a while to execute (robbery). When a person simply wants to kill and they have a gun, its a different story.
  22. labmath2
    Assuming every law abiding citizen in sight had a gun, and all of them instantly recognized him as the criminal when he starts firing, and the first person to pull their gun on him only miss the first two shots which hit no one else before hitting and klling him. How many deaths do you think will result from the attack. If all you said is true (which i wont dispute due to laziness on my part, i change my mind, everyone is not equally skilled wth a gun nor effective in crisis situation), this has more to do with preemptive attack in a public location. If everyone had a gun, including the attacker, i would actually be curious as to how it would go.
  23. labmath2
    Now imagine he had a gun. This is the foundation of liberal position on gun control.
  24. labmath2
    Spot on sir.
  25. labmath2
    This conversation was eye opening to say the least. Still waiting for a response from Mike.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.

  I accept