libertarians and nukes?

[AutoDas]

Stop presenting these hypothetical canards. There has never been a private citizen that owned a nuke. For private citizens it becomes a liability to maintain and store a nuke and you will not be able to get insured. At least when the "liberals" try to ban something there is something that triggered their reaction.

 

[NMCB3]

Whether you have intent to use it or not, the nature of the bomb still stands as a huge threat to the entire human race and planet. There is no guarantee that the bomb may be stolen from you & or accidentally detonated. Simply owning the bomb is threatening everyone. Zavoi explained it pretty well, might as well hold a knife an inch away from someones neck and say you have no intent to cut them.

Its like saying you should be able to own a black hole generator for the sake of sentimentality, even though the potential for it to be accidentally activated and sucking the planet into oblivion exists.

Sorry, but you have no right nor authority to dictate what I can and cannot own. No victim no crime...libertarianism 101.

 

[Andrew-Austin]

Sorry, but you have no right nor authority to dictate what I can and cannot own. No victim no crime...libertarianism 101.

And you have no right to put a gun to my head, and squeal that you'll be really careful not to pull the trigger.

Oh shucks, if only I was as principled as you.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Stop presenting these hypothetical canards. There has never been a private citizen that owned a nuke. For private citizens it becomes a liability to maintain and store a nuke and you will not be able to get insured. At least when the "liberals" try to ban something there is something that triggered their reaction.

At one time, it was impossible for a civilian to blast into space. However, that billionaire guy did it about 3 years ago. Ya never know what technology will do.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

And you have no right to put a gun to my head, and sequel that you'll be really careful not to pull the trigger.

Oh shucks, if only I was as principled as you.

That's not a very good example. You're assuming that the owner of said nukes would have them armed and ready 24/7. However, as a defense, the owner of nukes would probably keep the warheads and miscellaneous gadgets stored till needed. People already do this with legal semi-automatic rifles and such things.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

sorry, but you have no right nor authority to dictate what i can and cannot own. No victim no crime...libertarianism 101.

+1776

 

[The_Orlonater]

They are easily contained and much harder to have a misfire than a nuke, and when they do misfire, minimal comparative damage is done. Your insurance can cover a bazooka or grenade going off when you don't want it to. However, with nuclear weapons, an entire city is incinerated, and global climate is affected, not something any insurance company could handle, not to mention the millions upon millions of lives lost.

Bazooka,easy to contain? I wouldn't think so. Especially if it's loaded.

I don't mind and old antique one, especially if they don't make ammo for it. For a nice decoration.

A grenade, one mistake and many people will feel the sharp metal.

Guns are easier to contain, and can be used for self defense.

P.S. I also am for the government not being allowed to own nukes. Only if we engage in war, and it's Japan scenario. Then, I'd support it. Since it's a million to a low decimal chance.

Mine response is a "Fuck you, you murderous pricks."

 

[The_Orlonater]

+1776

Because the founders were surely anarchists.

 

[Andrew-Austin]

That's not a very good example. You're assuming that the owner of said nukes would have them armed and ready 24/7. However, as a defense, the owner of nukes would probably keep the warheads and miscellaneous gadgets stored till needed. People already do this with legal semi-automatic rifles and such things.

I'm not assuming anything, he could have it stored away, but it could be stolen among many other possibilities.

I do know that one nuke could fuck over the entire human race through nuclear winter, and there is no sane human being on the planet who would keep a nuke for the sake of collecting it.

Because the founders were surely anarchists.

And they knew what nuclear bombs were too.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Because the founders were surely anarchists.

On a relative scale, some could be called such. If the feds had nukes back then, I'm sure many of them would take my position. Besides, what's wrong with political anarchy?

 

[The_Orlonater]

And they knew what nuclear bombs were too.

How thoughtful of them.

 

[The_Orlonater]

On a relative scale, some could be called such. If the feds had nukes back then, I'm sure many of them would take my position. Besides, what's wrong with political anarchy?

Define political anarchy. It, IMO, can be interpreted in many ways.

No political parties?

I'm not for the Federal Government having nukes, I edited my post to point that out.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Define political anarchy. It, IMO, can be interpreted in many ways.

No political parties?

I'm not for the Federal Government having nukes, I edited my post to point that out.

Anarchy, in the simplest definition (to me), is simply a lack of centralized organization. Checks and balances on against people becoming too dangerous (dangerous use of nukes in this case) is handled by what's generally called "spontaneous organization" or "spontaneous order".

 

[The_Orlonater]

Anarchy, in the simplest definition (to me), is simply a lack of centralized organization. Checks and balances on against people becoming too dangerous (dangerous use of nukes in this case) is handled by what's generally called "spontaneous organization" or "spontaneous order".

No central organization. Anarchy, in it's simplest, form is lack of leaders. That's what the affix(Or suffix, I might of made a mistake defining whether it's a suffix or prefix, sorry).

If the Federal Government was abolished, and the authority went to the states. There would be no authority. It keeps subdiving from States to counties, to communities and so on. Anarchy is without any leaders, or elected officials.

Besides, I don't believe in governments owning nukes. Or anybody for that matter.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

One other thing...

I think some of my opponents in this debate assume that the government is better at handling nukes and dealing in "nuclear diplomacy". However, it should be noted that even though Japan sued for peace in American courts, the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to make a political statement-not to "bring peace to the Pacific".

Since the government is so bad at these things, how could a responsible private sector be any worse?

 

[Andrew-Austin]

One other thing...

I think some of my opponents in this debate assume that the government is better at handling nukes and dealing in "nuclear diplomacy". However, it should be noted that even though Japan sued for peace in American courts, the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to make a political statement-not to "bring peace to the Pacific".

Since the government is so bad at these things, how could a responsible private sector be any worse?

No one has said anything about the government being more responsible about nukes, at least I have not, its not about that.

I have nothing against anarchism really, I'm just trying to be practical here. Its easy to speak hypothetically on this forum that, "oh it'd just work out and nothing would happen", but in real life no one in good conscious could take this very seriously. I said in an earlier post, that when making the transition to a more libertarian society all nukes would have to be destroyed. What if some statist screwball decided to just hold on to a nuke as part of his weapons collection, then a year later decide to hold an entire city ransom with it?

You don't think voluntary communities would unanimously opt to destroy any nuclear weapons no matter who owned them in their area?

 

[The_Orlonater]

Was this directed towards me, because I don't believe in huge governments, especially owning nukes.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

No one has said anything about the government being more responsible about nukes, at least I have not, its not about that.

I have nothing against anarchism really, I'm just trying to be practical here. Its easy to speak hypothetically on this forum that, "oh it'd just work out and nothing would happen", but in real life no one in good conscious could take this very seriously. I said in an earlier post, that when making the transition to a more libertarian society all nukes would have to be destroyed. What if some statist screwball decided to just hold on to a nuke as part of his weapons collection, then a year later decide to hold an entire city ransom with it?

I totally agree. Nuclear disarmament would be very practical once the gov'ment is disarmed first.

 

[Matt Collins]

As a super power in a world of mad warring nations, we then decide to establish means for defense only.

Except that MAD is a legitimate defense sadly enough.

My point by saying all of this is:
If it were not for big government, if we had been living in a libertarian society all along, the atom bomb would not have been invented.

Except that some nation would've invented it at one point or another.

 

[Matt Collins]

On the other hand, weapons of mass destruction by their nature cannot be used for legitimate self-defense (since a large amount of collateral damage will result), and so the possession of such weapons constitutes a threat of aggression.

What about MAD? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction


Deterrence is a defense, right?