Search the Community

I'm sitting here listening to FDR2681, and kindof surprised at the conversation. Ok, perhaps this post is a bit of a stretch in terms of practicality, but I actually appreciated the caller's quandry to a degree, and like him am interested in Stef's analysis of the hypothetical example. The point of it is to get at the heart of the moral issue, not to create a silly hypothetical merely for the sake of it. These scenarios call us to question the limits or boundaries of the NAP, and that is important. I have added a few more elements to make the scenario even more interesting than was discussed in the podcast. To paraphrase, Stef's perspective of the essence of morality in this example lies within the complaint, and cited rape vs. rough sex as an example. But that analogy doesn't seem to corelate well to the moral questions contained here, now does it? What I added to the scenario below is done to dilute the moral outrage, such that it becomes less black or white, right or wrong. In today's society people would cry to the government, "there out to be a law against that". Really? Aren't there numerous scenarios where people are "at risk" and without insurance to protect them from that risk? What about unknown risks, like meteors the size of a car falling out of te sky into your house, or space junk? Or throat cancer? Just what is the risk to the community in the examples below, and does that really matter if a nosy neighbor complains? Could Bob sue the nosey neighbor for slander or defamation if his reputation is harmed but Bob's activities are proven to be totally safe? One could imagine many ways Bob's bombs could be safe, such as no explosive materials in his home (they're added to his bombs elsewhere before detonation for example). 1) The basement bomb maker, let's call him Bob, is discovered one day to have been making bombs in his basement for lets say 10 years (arbitrary but lengthly timeframe), during which time no issues or problems have occured. 2) This was discovered quite by accident when a neighbor noticed a bright reflection of the sun coming in his window from a rather odd shiny thing glistening in Bob's driveway. When the neighbor brought this to Bob's attention Bob explained it was for his latest project, and it must have fell out of the box he took from his car. The neighbor, not being satisfied with that explanation started watching Bob and eventually saw him through an open window working on something the neighbor was uncomfortable with. 2) Bob is a long time employee of Acme Explosives, a demolition company for quaries and structure disposal. Acme and several other former employers have recognized Bob for his "extreme" safety conciousness and have awarded him many plaques and other honors for his expertise. 3) Bob is passionate about his craft and has no malice or destructive intentions towards anybody. It is his hobby to build these devices and claims they're perfectly safe. He points to the many uses of his bombs to remove obsolete buildings which are in and of theselves a safety hazard and for reducing the time required to escavate the massive amount of earth for the nearby river dam project that brought electricity to 1000s of homes. 4) Bob would like to continue his experimentation and development of explosive devices and is willing to have a panel of explosive experts evaluate his basement "lab" for safety with the goal being to become certified as being safe for his residential setting. 5) Bob's experience gives him great confidence he will obtain the "safe" certification. But if not Bob will cease all work on his "hobby" devices until he can relocate to a place where there are no concerns for his activities. 6) Bob claims his bombs are no more risky to his neighbors than the sportsman down the street who reloads all his own ammunition. In fact he claims it's much safer. Now who is in favor of letting Bob play with his bombs? Would your decision be influenced if you knew Bob kept no explosive chemicals in his home, except for perhaps minor ones like primer caps or similar very low power, non-lethal detonators? ----- Perhaps another man is a collector of world war 2 biological weapons, claiming he is keeping them out of the dangerous hands of terrorists and politicians. Similar to the story of Bob above, a large underground storage bunker is discovered with these weapons and it has been under this man's control for a very long time. The man is well respected in his community and the discovery divides the community as to this man's motives and intentions for accumulating the weapons. Where would you stand on these issues? Isn't is similar to your stand on living near the San Andreous fault or Yellowstone? Or what about on the hurricane risk of the Atlantic coast or Gulf of Mexico? What about unknown risks? Do you know what dangerous industries are close to you? What about dangerous cargo on a nearby highway?

So, captain Phillips, the movie!!!, has grossed over $70 million USD so far. I'm a sailor, and I've seen it. It is a great movie, made entertaining by Tom Hanks. Great, great actor. I just thought I engage in some confirmation bias, and propaganda bashing. In real life, the peak of piracy kidnapping in Somalia was around 2008, with over 1000 sailors kidnapped that year. The Maersk Alabama was hijacked in 2009. I was the there a few days before on a passenger ship, and I can tell you that there was a lot of activity. And it is almost impossible to identify a pirate until he starts shooting at you, since all of the local fisherman are armed for self defence as well. There has been some controversey in the New York Post regarding the competency of the real life captain Phillips. As a mariner I'd just like to point out two things, which may be of interest to those of you who know a bit about the Admiralty Law Vs Common Law, Straw Man trickery dating back to the great fire of London. Firstly, sea captains are not Captains. Their proper legal title is 'Master'. The contract between a ships crew is literally a 'Master', slave relationship. Secondly, the 'Master' is the shipowners representative on board, however since the East India Company days, almost all ships are individually owned by dummy corporations, LLCs. So, somali piracy was caused by governments, destroying somali fishing grounds etc, and governments are responsible for the violence in somalia. Merchant Vessels are heavily regulated by the state and the UN, and have been disarmed decades ago by states, who wish their Naval Boarding parties safe access to board ships for 'customs checks', etc. Easy. The movie however, is a sneakily quiet bit of propaganda. And as Stefan Molyneux has often pointed out, 'when a problem is close to being solved by the free market elements, the state is always there to take credit.'. After 2009, the International Association of Classification Societies capitalised on raised public awareness of the Somali problem for seafarers. Vessels transitting the horn of africa were allowed to start employing private security firms whilst transitting the Horn of Africa. Self Defence from a ship is very easy if you have a few assault rifles, etc. One ship I was on employed 4 Israeli guys, to protect a 700ft passenger ship, with 1000 people on board. This has now become common practice. A little self defence goes a long way. from over 1000 sailors kidnapped per year in 2008 / 2009, there have been NO HiJackings in 2013. ZERO! There are still 250 people and 8 vessels held captive right now in Somalia, according to the ONI weekly bulletin. Allowing self defence again, and letting private firms find the optimal solution, have completely solved the problem in a matter of a couple of years. So cue the Propaganda to justify the massive Naval presence in the Middle East, Africa & Indian Ocean. So, time the release of the Captain Phillips movie, which presents the military as the all powerful defender of freedom, to coincide with the end of the problem. Here is a video that will make your skin crawl. Overview%20Piracy%20Incidents%20CN%2030%20Apr%2013.pdf

In this program I explore how the forging of empires left a binary legal system with oppressive laws for the conquered peoples and immunity from prosecution for the conquerors. Does that sound familiar?