Thread: We need hammer control NOW!!!

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't understand what you're saying... are you saying it shouldn't be illegal for the public to carry nuclear briefcases around in public?

It should. Those are actually controllable, for the reasons I stated. They also do not serve self-defense purposes, and they don't qualify as "arms" under the Second Amendment. Do you think we should ban hammers?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I read this argument as being: "So long as I never use this device which can exterminate a significant portion of life over a large area, it should be legal to have one."

Replace "briefcase nuke" with "Doomsday Device" and the slipperiness of this argument becomes glaringly obvious.



Poor analogy. Quarry explosives are not anything like nukes. Explosives used in quarries are shipped in separate parts as well. TNT on one train, detonator(s) on another, for instance.

When did you stop being an anarchist? You are arguing for laws now. I believe in laws too, but you used to say we shouldn't even have a government.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

When did you stop being an anarchist? You are arguing for laws now. I believe in laws too, but you used to say we shouldn't even have a government.

There's nothing about anarchism that says briefcase nukes should be permissible. Not the kind of anarchism that I'd advocate, anyway. Anarchy does not equal anomie, and if I did, I wouldn't be an anarchist.

To answer your question, I came to the conclusion that getting rid of the state wholesale does not always yield immediate benefits with regard to increasing or maintaining liberties. I said in the other thread that I am pro-liberty before I am anti-state. I will support the argument that the government should legalize gay marriage before supporting the argument that the state should not even be involved in marriage, for example.

If a maximally free society is one where the state doesn't exist, I will advocate for that system. If a maximally free society is one where the state still exists, but is minimal, I will advocate for that system. I don't know which one is true.

Whether all of that still makes me a non-anarchist is unclear. I see no reason why the state MUST exist to maintain a maximally free society, so I believe I still am an anarchist. If one must exist to maintain that freedom, then I will obviously change my mind and dump anarchism wholesale.

Besides, from a purely stylistic standpoint, purist anarchists never get anywhere in the debates I've seen (and been part of). If we argue about gun control or gay marriage, all they ever say is "get rid of the state, presto, problem solved." That's not feasible right now, so they achieve no benefits by arguing in that manner.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It should. Those are actually controllable, for the reasons I stated. They also do not serve self-defense purposes, and they don't qualify as "arms" under the Second Amendment. Do you think we should ban hammers?

If you actually look at your original argument, you're now just engaging in special pleading. No, I don't think hammers should be banned. Carpenters need to use them. Or maybe somebody just has a DIY hobby or hammer-collecting hobby. Presumably you concur that these are good reasons for allowing the transportation of hammers in public. And yet these reasons have nothing to do with self-defence. So when you object to transporting bombs on the grounds that they can't be used for self-defence, that's an incoherent argument. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to carry hammers or anything else around other than self-defence. Maybe somebody has a bomb hobby. Maybe someone likes to build nuclear reactors. The fact is that your objection to people carrying bombs is currently inconsistent. Whether or not it's easy to hide something is also just special pleading again. This was never important for your analogy. People should be allowed to carry hammers because they are free to do so, not because hammers are easy to hide - that's a nonsensical reason. And what if the hammer wasn't easy to hide? What if it was big and shiny? Obviously this should make no difference. So again it is inconsistent to reject the carrying of bombs on the grounds that bombs are "hard to hide". And anyway, what about bombs which aren't? Hiding a fertiliser bomb in the boot of your car is easy. Based on your current justifications, fertiliser bombs in the boots of cars shouldn't be illegal. And yet presumably you don't actually think that.

Try to come up with some consistent reasons why carrying hammers or guns should be legal, but not bombs.