71–80 of 114 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Free states write laws that criminalize harmful actions. Police states write laws that criminalize possessing things that could be used harmfully.
> 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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gasoline is regulated. Trucks transporting large quantities of it requires hazmat registration for the safety of first responders. Zoning regulations limit and regulate how large quantities of gasoline can be stored. Try parking a gas tanker in a residential HOA without proper hazmat plates and see how long it goes "without even raising any eyebrows". Try driving one without a hazmat license and see how long you get…
Gasoline in the quantities required to burn down a building with people inside it is, for the intents and purposes of an arsonist, unregulated. They might yell at you if you use an unapproved jerry can, but otherwise it may as well be unregulated as far as homicidal nut is concerned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Animation_arson_attack
When holding out the kyoto animation studio tragedy - are you sure you're not arguing for better fire codes and gasoline regulation, rather than the deregulation of phosophorus? You're certainly not making a good argument for deregulating gasoline entirely, if that's your intention. Yes, an arsonist can get their hands on enough to do damage. Suggesting we remove all those pesky regulations so they can trivially get a gas tanker and drive that into a building - making it easy for them to cause an even larger tragedy - certainly doesn't follow as a logical conclusion, nor does giving them ready unregulated access to potentially more dangerous materials:
https://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chemical/1337 https://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chemical/11498
...which would allow them to do more damage, or shrink their packages, or maybe just delay detection and reaction to their actions. Gasoline has a distinctive smell that would make me curious/cautious. What does phosophorus smell like? I could see myself mistaking someone spreading it out for someone spreading fertilizer or something, at least until the point it starts spontaniously combusting.
The government should have offered him a job instead of treating him as a criminal, especially considering his autism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I share your position, but the obvious counterpart to this is that many regular people need access to gasoline as part of their daily lives. not so with phosphorus. in general, I don't think citizens should have to answer "why do you need this?" to the government, but you're not really comparing apples to apples here.
It's about the societal costs of denial vs. the risks of availability. Restricting gasoline to only certain individuals would cost millions to billions of dollars and would save us from a few fires a year. Restricting access to nuclear bombs costs almost nothing and saves huge risk.
I hate how chemistry can land people in legal hot water due to overzealous government policies. While this example is not in the UK. It's illegal to own certain glassware without a permit in Texas for instance. The glassware is considered a drug precursor, like freaking glassware. Oh also federally the DEA treats Phosphorus as a type 1 precursor to meth. That's a freaking element! An element is illegal/regulated like…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In D&D there is a certain type of spell called Power Word Kill which works slightly differently based on the version of D&D you're playing with, but the effect is that it essentially kills a single individual with a single word. I'm not saying phosphorus should be legal or illegal, but at some point "it's just a packet I sent on the internet" or "it's just a PDF I sent to someone overseas" or "it's just an element" m…
> A certain degree of limiting the power of individual actors is wise. Unless you’re the individual and you aren’t malicious, you just want some glassware. I think your approach that people should be kept in a sandbox until they can prove to the state that they are “fundamentally good” is a terrifying one.
I doubt you're advocating for unrestricted access to nuclear bombs any more than 3pt14159 is advocating for restricting access to table salt (and I haven't seen 3pt14159 suggest glassware should be restricted either.) The question, then, is where to draw the line. It can be terrifyingly low, it can be terrifyingly high.
Restricting glassware does seem pretty absurd on it's face to me, although I'm only hearing one side of the argument so far. Phosphorus - that can be dangerous in large quantities even if you mean well. Neither I nor the fire department will be terribly amused if you warehouse large quantities of it in a residential neighborhood. Small amounts - sure, don't write laws that let you throw the book at people for small scale hobby chemestry.
Even nuclear material in some quantities can be fine. We certainly shouldn't arrest people for the americium-241 in their smoke detectors either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I share your position, but the obvious counterpart to this is that many regular people need access to gasoline as part of their daily lives. not so with phosphorus. in general, I don't think citizens should have to answer "why do you need this?" to the government, but you're not really comparing apples to apples here.
I think it is apples to apples, since as you say, the "why do you need this" question isn't relevant. Gasoline is easier to cause harm with and would be more readily accessible even if phosphorus were totally unregulated; regulating ownership of phosphorus nets a society nothing. It's as inane as banning switchblade knives when machetes, handguns, rifles, etc are all legal and available. Does anybody need a switchbla…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A certain degree of limiting the power of individual actors is wise. Unless you’re the individual and you aren’t malicious, you just want some glassware. I think your approach that people should be kept in a sandbox until they can prove to the state that they are “fundamentally good” is a terrifying one.
This rationale ad absurdum would suggest you should be able to keep a nuclear bomb without proving anything to the state - an equally terrifying prospect. I doubt you're advocating for unrestricted access to nuclear bombs any more than 3pt14159 is advocating for restricting access to table salt (and I haven't seen 3pt14159 suggest glassware should be restricted either.) The question, then, is where to draw the line.…
This is precisely what other states do. Remember for a moment that nations are fictions, and jurisdictions are fairy tales. How is johnny down the road with a nuclear weapon any different than some other person unknown to you in military of the next country over with a nuclear weapon?
Your regulation can not extend to the whole planet, and therefore someone you don’t know and don’t regulate will always have access to the highest levels of destructive technology you can’t keep a total secret, which is why the Teller-Ulam work is still classified.
I just don’t see the distinction. If others who ignore your proposed restrictions and regulations having nuclear weapons is such an existential threat, should we be trying to kick people out of the nuclear club?
I just don’t think the risk is as much as you seem to think it is. Humans don’t somehow suddenly become calmer, smarter, or more rational simply because they are wearing uniforms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A certain degree of limiting the power of individual actors is wise. Unless you’re the individual and you aren’t malicious, you just want some glassware. I think your approach that people should be kept in a sandbox until they can prove to the state that they are “fundamentally good” is a terrifying one.
There has to be some line where we say that an item is too dangerous for any random individual to own. Glassware should be unregulated, but if someone wants a nuclear bomb, I want to know who they are and what they plan on doing with it.
Is it, perhaps, illegal for them to even tell you?