[SecretSquirrel]

Would you call aiming a loaded gun at somebody's centre of mass at close range "not doing anything to anyone," Rothbardian?

[Nunt]

Would you call aiming a loaded gun at somebody's centre of mass at close range "not doing anything to anyone," Rothbardian?

This seems to summarize my idea pretty well.

Sure, nothing has actually been done. But people don't have to wait untill their rights are actually violated. The threat of property rights violation, or the possibility or risk of property rights violation is enough to undertake in self defence action.

[Rothbardian]

Would you call aiming a loaded gun at somebody's centre of mass at close range "not doing anything to anyone," Rothbardian?

Nope.

Would you consider owning a gun on your own property the same as pointing it at someone in public?

[SecretSquirrel]

Would you call aiming a loaded gun at somebody's centre of mass at close range "not doing anything to anyone," Rothbardian?

Nope.

Would you consider owning a gun on your own property the same as pointing it at someone in public?

A gun? No.

A bomb with a blast radius that reaches over my property line? YES, absolutely.

Thanks for taking the bait. Good luck next time, apprentice

[KlassWar]

Would you call aiming a loaded gun at somebody's centre of mass at close range "not doing anything to anyone," Rothbardian?

That's threatening somebody with physical violence, and it's generally appropriate to respond violently to a meaningful threat of violence.

[Rothbardian]

A gun? No.

A bomb with a blast radius that reaches over my property line? YES, absolutely.

Thanks for taking the bait. Good luck next time, apprentice

Doesn't make any sense. My bullets can easily reach over your property line. Simply owning a weapon that could potentially harm you is not the same as threatening to harm you.

And you have as of yet failed to answer the question:

What gives YOU the right to decide what property I can and cannot own?

[SecretSquirrel]

Do you know how bringing an explosive that you own into a place where its blast radius, were it to explode, would harm/kill other people is the same as bringing a gun to the same place and aiming it at a person?

In both cases you are directly placing their life at the mercy of your action. Triggering the bomb, whether by accident or on purpose, will kill a bystander exactly as would triggering a gun which you are aiming at them.

Thus, physically locating an explosive that you own close enough to somebody else as to endanger them is interpreted exactly as would be aiming a gun at them, and worse than merely having a gun on your person. Meaning, if you do this you will be correctly (from the doctrine of reasonable foreseeability) interpreted as an aggressor.

It is within your power as an autonomous moral agent, strictly speaking, to be an aggressor if you wish to. But in the state of nature, aggressors (as well as perceived aggressors) make mortal enemies -- and in civilised society, aggressors are subject to laws and punishments.

Feel free to own all the bombs you want in your underground reinforced bunker miles away from civilisation. As well as your nukes, on the moon.

[Rothbardian]

Do you know how bringing an explosive that you own into a place where its blast radius, were it to explode, would harm/kill other people is the same as bringing a gun to the same place and aiming it at a person?

In both cases you are directly placing their life at the mercy of your action. Triggering the bomb, whether by accident or on purpose, will kill a bystander exactly as would triggering a gun which you are aiming at them.

Thus, physically locating an explosive that you own close enough to somebody else as to endanger them is interpreted exactly as would be aiming a gun at them, and worse than merely having a gun on your person. Meaning, if you do this you will be correctly (from the doctrine of reasonable foreseeability) interpreted as an aggressor.

It is within your power as an autonomous moral agent, strictly speaking, to be an aggressor if you wish to. But in the state of nature, aggressors (as well as perceived aggressors) make mortal enemies -- and in civilised society, aggressors are subject to laws and punishments.

Feel free to own all the bombs you want in your underground reinforced bunker miles away from civilisation. As well as your nukes, on the moon.

I never claimed a gun is the same as a bomb. Just like bringing a gun into a place isn't the same as bringing a knife. And bringing a knife isn't the same as bringing a squirt gun. I'm addressing the principles of your argument, sorry that gets your panties all in a knot. But that's your problem, not mine.

Since you can't tell me why you have a right to dictate what property I can and can't own I am not sure what your point is.

[SecretSquirrel]

Can you own your property in a vacuum? Or are there always pesky "other human beings who have the right to not die in a nuclear holocaust when your nuclear reactor destroys the earth by accident" getting in the way?

[Rothbardian]

Can you own your property in a vacuum? Or are there always pesky "other human beings who have the right to not die in a nuclear holocaust when your nuclear reactor destroys the earth by accident" getting in the way?

Of course you can't. If we were discussing one person owning property in a vacuum I wouldn't ask you how you can apply your claim to others, specifically to me.

For myself, I wouldn't want to live in a place where my neighbors might have bombs or dangerous devices near myself and my family, heavens no. Luckily for me I have learned that just because I have preferences doesn't mean I somehow have a right to impose those preferences on others.

With a little critical thinking, we can devise voluntary methods of structuring a safe society without having to twist your brain into pretzels of self contradictory arguments.

[SecretSquirrel]

I already stated that no one has the right to deny you ownership of any conceivable thing in a state of nature. Twice, in fact. But we aren't talking about that, are we? We are talking about reality.

Now, if you can find neighbors willing (as in, personally, if not for the local law or State) to let you build an ammo dump on your side of the picket fence, opposite their bedroom, go ahead. I challenge you to find a single such person -- let alone enough such people so as to form a "voluntarily structured safe society" permitting this. Take as long as you need.

The only one on this thread contorting himself into pretzels is you. You're as bad as a garden variety progressive

EDIT: BTW, congratulations. Your persistent efforts in thread derailment have succeeded wildly

[Nunt]

Doesn't make any sense. My bullets can easily reach over your property line. Simply owning a weapon that could potentially harm you is not the same as threatening to harm you.

This is only a difference of degree. Any human action has a certain probability of violating the rights of others. If this probability is large enough, then the people who suffer that risk are justified to take actions to prevent them from suffering that risk. We have previously agreed that if your neighbour points his gun at your head, then you are allowed to shoot him in self defence. Even if he is just standing on his own property and he has not (yet) physically invaded your property.

By agreeing to this, you have agreed to the following principle: if someone places your property under sufficient risk of being harmed, without actually harming your property, then he is already violating your property rights. Your earlier statements lead you to the point where you must agree to this principle. If you cannot agree to this, then this would lead you to believe that self defence would only be justified after the actual property violation has taken place, in this example: when the bullet pierces your skull. This would of course be too late because you'd be dead.

For the same reason that someone is not allowed to stand on his own property, and use his own gun as he pleases, a person is not allowed to stock explosives that can potentially harm other peoples property. You don't have to wait untill the explosives go off before you can file a complaint, because you'd be dead.

[Rothbardian]

This is only a difference of degree. Any human action has a certain probability of violating the rights of others. If this probability is large enough, then the people who suffer that risk are justified to take actions to prevent them from suffering that risk. We have previously agreed that if your neighbour points his gun at your head, then you are allowed to shoot him in self defence. Even if he is just standing on his own property and he has not (yet) physically invaded your property.

By agreeing to this, you have agreed to the following principle: if someone places your property under sufficient risk of being harmed, without actually harming your property, then he is already violating your property rights. Your earlier statements lead you to the point where you must agree to this principle. If you cannot agree to this, then this would lead you to believe that self defence would only be justified after the actual property violation has taken place, in this example: when the bullet pierces your skull. This would of course be too late because you'd be dead.

For the same reason that someone is not allowed to stand on his own property, and use his own gun as he pleases, a person is not allowed to stock explosives that can potentially harm other peoples property. You don't have to wait untill the explosives go off before you can file a complaint, because you'd be dead.

Pointing a weapon at someone, making ready to harm them, is an obvious threat. If I pull out a knife as I'm approaching you, then you reasonably have reason to fear for your life. Simply owning a weapon is not a threat.

Now, if you want to come up with voluntary means to exclude people that own weapons around you, the point is moot. In a free society that would absolutely be my intent. You absolutely have the right to ostracize people who offend your sensibilities. If you want to create a voluntary community that excludes people from owning hammers, I you have my blessing. My point is that if it is true that the founders felt people should be restricted from owning certain kinds of weapons by the government, then they were a bunch of hypocrites.

[SecretSquirrel]

way to ignore my post

[Rothbardian]

way to ignore my post

Sorry, but it's far too witty. You can't expect someone as simple minded as myself to keep up with you.

[SecretSquirrel]

So rather than rise to the oratorical challenge you instead sink to mockery. Got it.

[Rothbardian]

So rather than rise to the oratorical challenge you instead sink to mockery. Got it.

Well, I read your posts and I get a lot of ranting about how I'm a troll, trying to derail the thread, etc. I think maybe you take yourself a little too seriously if you think I'm going to come here just to try to undermine you. Besides, as far as I can tell you mostly agree with me so I'm not sure why you are getting so upset.

[Eran]

Pointing a weapon at someone, making ready to harm them, is an obvious threat. If I pull out a knife as I'm approaching you, then you reasonably have reason to fear for your life. Simply owning a weapon is not a threat.

The degree to which a threat is "obvious" varies.

If I point a gun at your head, the threat is very far into the "obvious" part of the spectrum.

What if I merely wave a gun around? What if I carry the gun in a visible holster, but make threats about shooting you?

And what about danger of an accidental harm, as when I use my back-yard (right next to yours) to hold chemical waste in clearly-unsafe containers?

The point Nunt made is that threats sit on a sliding scale of probability. Beyond a certain (hard to quantify) probability, we feel a pre-emptive use of force is justified.