FDR2682 Basement Bombs

[RuralRon]

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?

[scn]

Ditto, RuralRun.  I completely share your sentiments.  And I'm not thrilled with how Stefan responded to the last caller in Freedom Versus Basement Bombs.

 

The caller respectfully raised insightful, thoughtful philosophical questions about how anarcho-capitalism handles use-of-force.  Starting with the gutteral sounds Stefan made at the beginning of the segment and extending throughout the interaction I felt Stefan was exasperated and dismissive of the caller's objections.  But this does not a proper intellectual response make.

 

The caller's question which remains unanswered to my satisfaction is at what point does mere possession of a destructive item constitute a violation of NAP?  And no, this is not an argumentative, nor trivial question.  It is not a question that can be waved away as readily negotiable.  It is not a question that can be disregarded as irrelevant in some future ideal society where all children are raised peaceably.

 

The lack of clarity around a core use-of-force issue like this is a key element driving people toward socialist or minarchist solutions.  In many people’s eyes such statist schemes are at least clear, well-defined, and protective of minority rights (regardless that statist force is actually net destructive to liberty).  There is a great appeal to human psychology of the devil-you-know rather than the devil-you-don't.  People who may be willing to tolerate some uncertainty around who will build the roads will not be comfortable with uncertainty around who will be able to point a gun at them.  Anarcho-capitalists need to have a patient, measured, convincing response to any and all questions around handling of use-of-force.

 

I wished the caller had persisted with his final question rather than relenting to the pressure applied on him to move on.  His unanswered question was: If individual property owners (not leasees) living in proximity do not agree on how much destructive force is "too much" to peacefully possess in promity to each other, how is this effectively resolved?

 

In the scenario of the bomb-maker, this munitions-loving man was not harming anyone nor expressing any intentions to.  He was confining his activities to his own property, and may have been taking extensive safety precautions so his activities did not present undue risk to his neighbors.

 

Yet Stefan simply asserted that this man was "crazy" as if that subjective assessment settled matters of right and wrong.  Stefan also pointed out because the man was just one against many he would have no practical recourse to defensive force and therefore the DRO representing the many would just summarily burst into his home and violate his property.  That ends that.  No further consideration of what constitutes a just resolution.

 

Whoa.  Many people are ga-ga over powerful military gear and love to collect it or stockpile it.  This does not make them force-initiators.  What if it were not just this one man who was into powerful weapons like bombs, but two different men in the neighborhood.  Or 100 in the community.  Or 1,000.  Etc.  At what point does a minority become "serious" rather than "crazy" and entitled to sit down and negotiate boundaries with the majority rather than have its property summarily seized by a self-defense-claiming majority’s DRO force?

 

It is a red herring to point to how much worse large-scale statist solutions are.  No one in this discussion is advocating them.  The friendly question is exactly how do the mechanisms of anarcho-capitalism reconcile individual freedoms of action with individual rights to use force in self-defense when the two come into conflict.

 

Consider a continuum of increasingly powerful force items escalating from:baseball bat -> knife -> handgun -> rifle -> automatic rifle -> grenade -> bazooka -> artillery piece -> missile launcher -> conventional bomb -> nuclear bombEach of these munitions has offensive and defensive applications depending on the context of its use.

 

Every individual has his own opinion on which, if any, of the above weapons are "excessive" to possess for home defense and/or militia homeland defense.  Every individual has his own opinion on when or if mere possession of some of these items constitutes an inherent threat to the lives and property of others.  As one moves to right on this spectrum probably a larger group would have a problem, and its opinion would be well-represented in society via its well-funded, well-armed DRO busting down doors.  What about minority opinions and freedoms?  Are they just out of luck?

 

How does anarcho-capitalism draw the line where one man's freedom's end and another's right to use defense force begins when there is not one universally recognized arbiter of what constitutes initiation of force?  How does anarcho-capitalism handle the situation when it’s not the application of a principle that's at issue (resolvable via negotiated compromise), but the very definition of what constitutes initiated force (hard to compromise on - for example, abortion's pro-life vs. pro-choice positions)?  If fractions of society in such matters are widely disparate in size and DRO power, is the minority to be completely helpless and without voice subject to the force of arms of the other side’s DRO?

 

Without more clarity here, anarcho-capitalism would seem to boil down to might-makes-right when it comes to disputes of what constitutes use-of-force.  Might-makes-right is an unappealing basis for a political system.  It historically has a bad reputation and has led to bad outcomes.  Minorities usually end up screwed or dead.  People don't want to embrace political systems that rely on might-makes-right.

 

I’d welcome a more careful discussion of the principles at play here giving more measured, serious consideration to the questions and concerns this caller raised.

[RuralRon]

Thanks scn for your well thought out & articulated reply.

 

As I said in my opening paragraph I am interested in Stef's analysis of the moral issue contained herein. He is the defacto leader of the philosophy expressed here and I respect his experience in thinking through these moral issues. He has a clarity of thought I have not achieved. That's not to say he can't make a mistake or that I do not take responsibility for thinking through these issues myself. That's why I'm posting here to be sure, and the more that contribute to this discussion the better I can understand every aspect of the topic.

 

Unfortunately I don't expect he'll weigh in on this conversation, though as you pointed out it really does drill down to very important moral matters. And I'll cut Stef some slack, as it's not difficult to see the demand on his time is quite heavy, and skimming these forums to participate is not likely even on his radar any longer. Perhaps another caller will make another attempt to raise the issue and have the right personality to get Stef to respond more deeply and with the level of respect the topic deserves.

 

We'll see over time if others contribute to this, and I sincerely hope they will, and perhaps a fruitful discussion it will become.

[scn]

RuralRon, you are right.  I have equal admiration for Stefan's formidable intellectual capabilities.  And I doubt he will weigh-in on our concerns here.

 

I feel frustrated that Stefan spends so much time and energy on his radio program wading through the Jerry Springer-eque quandaries of random callers-in.  I wish Stefan would step back to let all those good people work through the particulars of their personal problems over time, in private, sitting down with a good therapist whose career and skillset is dedicated to emotional counseling.  Philosophy and psychology may be related disciplines, but they are distinct.

 

I wish Stefan would just spend his time exploring weighty philosophical topics like this one.  Philosophy is where his talents are truly great and he can change the world.  All the detailed questions surrounding what real freedom would actually look like are vital and crying out to be better understood not just by forward thinkers like you and me but also by the public at large.

[RuralRon]

RuralRon, you are right.  I have equal admiration for Stefan's formidable intellectual capabilities.  And I doubt he will weigh-in on our concerns here.

 

I feel frustrated that Stefan spends so much time and energy on his radio program wading through the Jerry Springer-eque quandaries of random callers-in.  I wish Stefan would step back to let all those good people work through the particulars of their personal problems over time, in private, sitting down with a good therapist whose career and skillset is dedicated to emotional counseling.  Philosophy and psychology may be related disciplines, but they are distinct.

 

I wish Stefan would just spend his time exploring weighty philosophical topics like this one.  Philosophy is where his talents are truly great and he can change the world.  All the detailed questions surrounding what real freedom would actually look like are vital and crying out to be better understood not just by forward thinkers like you and me but also by the public at large.

 

I actually believe his energies with FDR are proportioned fairly well. Although at times I wish he would dismiss callers that haven't thought through the issues they bring up, those may be the very ones that might serve as ambassadors to deeper more responsible thinking so that one day the public at large will see the wisdom shown here.

 

I know that sounds overly optimistic. Perhaps so. But I am extremely grateful for the opportunities I've had to have insightful conversations with Stefan. Were those perfect conversations? There's always room for improvement, and I wish Stef's ego would relax more to give others a chance to express themselves, but the capacity for compassion that man has brings me to tears sometimes. At others I'm shouting at the top of my lungs to stop interrupting at let them speak!

 

Another observation I have, which I find quite prevalent at FDR in general, is how rigid Stefan and many here cling to empirical evidence  as though evidence is proof. I've posted on that topic before and am quite sensitive to both faith based arguments and those involving inflexible and closed minded empiricism. The scientific method is a fantastic tool which relies on meticulous devotion to details and the gathering of empirical evidence, but imagination, curiosity and open mindedness toward the unknown are equally important tools in the arsenal of human progress IMHO. The progress killer of humanity is ego that leaves no room for the later and denies a huge part of the human condition. It seems to be in opposition to love that unites people.

 

I heard a physicist say that all choices boil down to a choice between fear and love. An overbearing ego is an expression of insecurity and thus fear. But without any ego there is no sense of self. Without fear our species would have been extinct long ago. Without love we're so much less than human.

 

It takes big egos to attempt to tackle big dreams, and Stefan appears to be up to the challenge of changing the world through philosophy.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

In the scenario of the bomb-maker, this munitions-loving man was not harming anyone nor expressing any intentions to.  He was confining his activities to his own property, and may have been taking extensive safety precautions so his activities did not present undue risk to his neighbors.

 

Yet Stefan simply asserted that this man was "crazy" as if that subjective assessment settled matters of right and wrong.  Stefan also pointed out because the man was just one against many he would have no practical recourse to defensive force and therefore the DRO representing the many would just summarily burst into his home and violate his property.  That ends that.  No further consideration of what constitutes a just resolution.

 

This question and others was answered exhaustively. I'm pretty sure there was more to Stef's argument more than "he is crazy". If someone is building a bomb in the neighborhood then they directly threatening people. It's self-evident. He is a BOMB-MAKER. building a fucking BOMB. How do you know he isn't presenting an undue risk? Stef addressed that in the discussion. It's like no matter how many answers the nitpickers get they're never satisfied. You want the exact point at which a threat is occurring measured to the last atom. It's philosophical OCD.

[RuralRon]

Did you read all of the posts in this [old] thread ProfessionalTeabagger? Why do you come into this discussion so late and express an obviously emotional charge without quotes or justification of your claims? You've been around here long enough and were clearly here when this was a new topic, yet you just now find it worth your while to post, which was devoid of any firm facts, such as "this question and others", what others?

 

You say "pretty sure there was more to Stef's argument"? Why make this claim without knowing? If you read the entirety of this thread you can see it was a discussion that involves hypotheticals besides the literal content of the podcast. Not one but at least two people had some reservations about Stef's position and stance in the podcast, perhaps more that didn't bother to post here.

 

I'm getting very tired of seeing such hypersensitivity to things Stef says, as though he can say nothing bad or questionable whatsoever. It's as though people treat him as an unquestionable authority. My perspective is all authority needs to be questioned, all of it. He himself says he wants to be corrected if he's wrong, so things like this should not be a big deal. Why don't we call in to the show to bring this up? Really, waste his time and everyone else's on air for this? If Stef values this community and saw it as a valuable source of feedback towards his own self improvement he would have his staff look for such topics and then review them himself when they rise to a level of importance that meets his threshold of needing to be dealt with.

 

I have chosen to step back from my rather high level of involvement in forum starting about a month ago, and haven't logged on as much as a result. I know one donator that has left the forum never to come back and several others that likewise have chosen to stop logging in here for similar reasons. What's going on in the FDR community is not good and it's not being dealt with. Even Stefan has commented on recent podcasts that donations are down. Perhaps he should be more proactively looking into why that is.

 

Perhaps people "nit pick" to balance out the rampant hero worship seen here, where posts get tromped on (like this one) with no firm basis for doing so, no backing to the claims made. All that does is stir up hate and discontent. It is not an empathetic position to take and the emotional energy that it's delivered with leads me to ask why, and what's going on with this person? What haven't they dealt with from their past?

 

If you bother to research the posts I've made (including this one) you would see there is a balance of criticism and praise of Stef. There's no doubt in my mind he is a force of nature and deserves respect for what he has accomplished and what he hopes to accomplish. But if I refrain from discussing troublesome behaviors and only speak of the things I totally agree with how is that not just being a yes man? Where does that leave room for me an my input or perspective? Well, it doesn't leave any room for it and I respect myself too much to just be a yes man.

 

There are many many other topics that deserve Stef's attention in that regard, but I don't see him involved in any of them or even concerned with this community enough to comment on them. And I really wonder why not. Sure he's very busy, sure he has a staff to handle much of this type of thing, but there are some topics that he should be more actively involved in, especially recently In My Opinion. I am still allowed to express my opinion here, right?