6 ms·

> Free states write laws that criminalize harmful actions. Police states write laws that criminalize possessing things that could be used harmfully. Would you

> Free states write laws that criminalize harmful actions. Police states write laws that criminalize possessing things that could be used harmfully. Would you agree that nukes run afoul of that reasoning?

moron4hire 7y ago
Would you agree that using nukes as an example is arguing in bad faith because they are prohibitively expensive to acquire, even if they were deregulated? It's not like weapons grade uranium is just sitting around. You literally have to make it, which is "state actor" level of hard work.
- JoshuaDavid 7y ago
  It was within the capabilities of 1940s state actors. Even if it still takes a state actor level of resources now, that probably won't remain true all that long (considering that it's within the capabilities of North Korea, it can't be that far from "large corporation" levels of difficulty even now). I can't think of any obvious examples of other materials that would be reasonable to restrict in the same way as fissile materials though. Those are kind of a special case where there aren't many uses for the material (power and bombs are basically the only uses I'm aware of for enriched uranium), and it's hard enough to obtain that trying to restrict it isn't entirely useless (unlike phosphorous, which you can buy in the grocery store in any box of matches). Chemical weapons I suppose. Since it's an important example, I don't think it's a bad faith argument, but also note that an argument that restrictions on simple possession of one material without any proof of intent to use it for harm are justified doesn't mean that all such restrictions are justified. I think gp was arguing the "sometimes justified" case, not the "always justified" one.
- DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
  > Would you agree that using nukes as an example is arguing in bad faith Nope. I chose nukes because they were an obvious example of something that we didn't want just anyone to have within arms' reach. I didn't expect it to be subjected to the kind of criticism you're raising.
daenz 7y ago
There is always an exception to every rule, except for this one.

moron4hire 7y ago

Would you agree that using nukes as an example is arguing in bad faith because they are prohibitively expensive to acquire, even if they were deregulated? It's not like weapons grade uranium is just sitting around. You literally have to make it, which is "state actor" level of hard work.

JoshuaDavid 7y ago
It was within the capabilities of 1940s state actors. Even if it still takes a state actor level of resources now, that probably won't remain true all that long (considering that it's within the capabilities of North Korea, it can't be that far from "large corporation" levels of difficulty even now). I can't think of any obvious examples of other materials that would be reasonable to restrict in the same way as fissile materials though. Those are kind of a special case where there aren't many uses for the material (power and bombs are basically the only uses I'm aware of for enriched uranium), and it's hard enough to obtain that trying to restrict it isn't entirely useless (unlike phosphorous, which you can buy in the grocery store in any box of matches). Chemical weapons I suppose. Since it's an important example, I don't think it's a bad faith argument, but also note that an argument that restrictions on simple possession of one material without any proof of intent to use it for harm are justified doesn't mean that all such restrictions are justified. I think gp was arguing the "sometimes justified" case, not the "always justified" one.
DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
> Would you agree that using nukes as an example is arguing in bad faith Nope. I chose nukes because they were an obvious example of something that we didn't want just anyone to have within arms' reach. I didn't expect it to be subjected to the kind of criticism you're raising.

daenz 7y ago

There is always an exception to every rule, except for this one.