3 ms·
I assume axes need regulating, so you don't cut down the trees, matches so you can't burn them, poisons so you don't kill the birds, speakers because loud noise
by ALittleLight 6y ago
I assume axes need regulating, so you don't cut down the trees, matches so you can't burn them, poisons so you don't kill the birds, speakers because loud noise could disrupt them, etc. ?
- astrea 6y agoYou act as if you're making a valid counter-point, but all of these actions would indeed be punishable by their respective law or regulation.
- ALittleLight 6y agoDoing harmful things is what's punishable and regulated. Having the means to do them is not. e.g. I would be punished for chopping down a bird sanctuary, but not required to get a license to own an axe.
- Barrin92 6y agoIn most countries you can't carry a knife on you that's longer than a few centimeters in public. I have no idea what kind of axe legislation exists because I doubt it's ever been a major issue if someone somewhere in the forest swings an axe around, but it actually is perfectly common to regulate tools that are dangerous for other people or endangered animals, plants and so on.
- dionidium 6y agoIf you could make an axe or a match that couldn’t hurt people, then obviously, yes, you’d do that. We haven’t before now had the technology to do that in a way that wouldn’t violate other rights, but the technology is shifting in such a way that there are domains where we will have that ability and of course we should do it. The only reason anybody objects to this is because, again, we used to live in a world where you’d have to do something objectionable to achieve these goals, but as that becomes less true the objections will seem increasingly absurd. Our intuitions in this space lag reality.