Should Libertarians support anarcho-capitalism?

[Natural Citizen]

If I'm to understand your comment, you are asking me why I can be concerned about government WMDs and not private ones? Or something else?

otherone said - The difficulty is in perspicacity, however, as a consensus IRT definitions will be difficult.

I believe it is best to abandon labels all together, and focus on principles alone.
As a start:

1) I own me.
2) You own you.
3) I own my stuff
4) You own your stuff
5) Anyone who violates 1-4 has committed a crime

Natural Citizen said: Okay. So. I'm allowed to manufacture and sell chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, then. Whew. Close one. I thought The Man was gonna put me outta business there for a hot second.

otherone said: ''The question is; who determines to what degree the state may infringe upon your freedom? The majority? The opinion of a ruler?''



I'm asking you why that's the question. And I offered to you my opinion of why this is not the correct question. If, indeed, that is the question, then, we must equally consent to why this is the question. I offered that under both situations, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of either the Mjaority or the unlimited power of a Ruler.

I offered definitions to support my claim. They are as follows...


Under a Rule by Omnipotent Majority, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

Under a Ruler, The Individual, and any group of Individuals, have no protection against the unlimited power of the Ruler. It is a case of a Ruler-over-Man.

So, I'm asking you to pick up where we left off. Do you disagree?

Thanks, otherone.

 

[otherone]

otherone said: ''The question is; who determines to what degree the state may infringe upon your freedom? The majority? The opinion of a ruler?''

I'm asking you why that's the question. And I offered to you my opinion of why this is not the correct question. If, indeed, that is the question, then, we must equally consent to why this is the question. I offered that under both situations, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of either the Mjaority or the unlimited power of a Ruler.

I offered definitions to support my claim. They are as follows...


Under a Rule by Omnipotent Majority, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

Under a Ruler, The Individual, and any group of Individuals, have no protection against the unlimited power of the Ruler. It is a case of a Ruler-over-Man.

So, I'm asking you to pick up where we left off. Do you disagree?

Thanks, otherone.

I posed the question in relation to your comment about the individual owning chemical weapons, etal. I inferred from your comment that you believe the individual should be restricted in his freedom based on certain criteria. I was asking you who has the authority to restrict that freedom. Majority, king, or any other type of sovereign. It was a serious question.

 

[Krugminator2]

Of course. Owning the ability to cause harm does not absolve you from the consequences of doing harm. Your concern is fear of harm. IOW, you believe you have the right to feel safe. Many governments possess WMDs. These weapons are in the hands of people. Doesn't that concern you?

Most people who lead a country are not crazy. If you allow any one of billions of people to own nuclear weapons chances go up dramatically that weapons will end up into the hands of a very crazy person.

If a crazy person uses a nuclear weapon and kills 100,000 people, how are you going to give a just punishment that person in anarchotopia? The death penalty certainly isn't much of a punishment which a lot of anarchists don't even believe in? Are you going to have the guy who killed 100,000 people do chores to work his debt off?

You don't have to wait for nukes to be used. Individuals should be prevented from owning nukes and states that embrace crazy ideologies (North Korea, Cuba, USSR, Iran, etc) should be prevented from obtaining nuclear weapons. The correct thing to do is prevent people who might have a proclivity to use nuclear weapons offensively from getting them in the first place. Are you for letting ISIS have nukes in anarchotopia? They would use nukes from now until the end of time if they obtained them.

 

[otherone]

Most people who lead a country are not crazy./ If you allow any one of billions of people to own nuclear weapons chances go up dramatically that weapons will end up into the hands of a very crazy person.

If a crazy person uses a nuclear weapon and kills 100,000 people, how are you going to give a just punishment that person in anarchotopia? The death penalty certainly isn't much of a punishment which a lot of anarchists don't even believe in? Are you going to have the guy who killed 100,000 people do chores to work his debt off?

You don't have to wait for nukes to be used. Individuals should be prevented from owning nukes and states that embrace crazy ideologies (North Korea, Cuba, USSR, Iran, etc) should be prevented from obtaining nuclear weapons. The correct thing to do is prevent people who might have a proclivity to use nuclear weapons offensively from getting them in the first place. Are you for letting ISIS have nukes in anarchotopia? They would use nukes from now until the end of time if they obtained them.

This is the same argument used to justify gun control. The difference is in scale. Who determines what people can and can not own?

 

[Krugminator2]

This is the same argument used to justify gun control. The difference is in scale. Who determines what people can and can not own?

A pretty good rule of thumb is any time risk is open ended, where people won't be able to be justly punished, preemptively using government to restrict the amount of damage a state or individual can inflict is justified.

That applies to nuclear weapons and it applies to the leverage banks can use. Banks that sell options are taking on open ended risk which could affect everyone if they sell options in excess. Being able to destroy the world or the financial system is too great of a risk so you don't have to wait for things to go wrong.

Who will determine? Elected leaders. I trust elected leaders infinitely more than Jihadi John to do the right thing.

 

[Swordsmyth]

This is the same argument used to justify gun control. The difference is in scale. Who determines what people can and can not own?

And there is an important threshold point on that scale.

 

[otherone]

No it isn't.

A pretty good rule of thumb is any time risk is open ended, where people won't be able to be justly punished, preemptively using government to restrict the amount of damage a state or individual can inflict is justified.

That applies to nuclear weapons and it applies to the leverage banks can use. Banks that sell options are taking on open ended risk which could affect everyone if they sell options in excess. Being able to destroy the world or the financial system is too great of a risk so you don't have to wait for things to go wrong.

If you believe an individual by his own actions can destroy the world, then I may be inclined to agree with you. The question remains, however, who decides when the restrictions start, and based on what? Other than a rule of thumb.

As an example, I purchase a cannon, blow up my neighbor's house, killing all the occupants. A rule of thumb: People shouldn't be allowed to own cannons. Problem solved. But let's say instead I douse the place with gasoline, torch it, and kill all the occupants. Do we ban gasoline? What's the difference?

 

[Krugminator2]

If you believe an individual by his own actions can destroy the world, then I may be inclined to agree with you. The question remains, however, who decides when the restrictions start, and based on what? Other than a rule of thumb.

As an example, I purchase a cannon, blow up my neighbor's house, killing all the occupants. A rule of thumb: People shouldn't be allowed to own cannons. Problem solved. But let's say instead I douse the place with gasoline, torch it, and kill all the occupants. Do we ban gasoline? What's the difference?

Cannons and guns don't pose unlimited risk. Nuclear weapons pose unlimited risk.

Who decides? Governments decide. Anytime you have asymmetric risk that is so great that the consequences affect the entire population in some way, governments preemptively stepping in to contain potential damage is legitimate.

You are going to have situations where markets break down because the disincentives of bad behavior aren't great enough to prevent people from doing wrong therefore a government should step in and change the playing field. That's why environmental regulations are necessary. It is why banking regulations make sense. And it is why allowing people the power to destroy the world has to be curbed.

 

[otherone]

Cannons and guns don't pose unlimited risk. Nuclear weapons pose unlimited risk.

Nuclear arsenals pose unlimited risk.

 

[Krugminator2]

Nuclear arsenals pose unlimited risk.

Yes I did say that and it is true.

 

[Swordsmyth]

If you believe an individual by his own actions can destroy the world, then I may be inclined to agree with you. The question remains, however, who decides when the restrictions start, and based on what? Other than a rule of thumb.

As an example, I purchase a cannon, blow up my neighbor's house, killing all the occupants. A rule of thumb: People shouldn't be allowed to own cannons. Problem solved. But let's say instead I douse the place with gasoline, torch it, and kill all the occupants. Do we ban gasoline? What's the difference?

There is no difference, neither one should be banned because the risk is low compared to NBC weapons and you might have a legitimate use for either one, you have no legitimate use for NBC weapons.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I posed the question in relation to your comment about the individual owning chemical weapons, etal.

Why?

You said:

1) I own me.
2) You own you.
3) I own my stuff
4) You own your stuff
5) Anyone who violates 1-4 has committed a crime

I said: Okay. So. I'm allowed to manufacture and sell chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, then. Whew. Close one. I thought The Man was gonna put me outta business there for a hot second.

I thought we were good.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

There is no difference, neither one should be banned because the risk is low compared to NBC weapons and you might have a legitimate use for either one, you have no legitimate use for NBC weapons.

That's right.

...not something we 2nd amendment supporters want to hear, but right.

The idea that the 'oi polloi should have the same weaponry as the army is quite insane.

...a relic of well intended but irrational Enlightenment thinking about the nature of the people (can't work against their own interests, etc).

The people should be armed so as to defend themselves from criminals, not so as to overthrow the government,

 

[The Rebel Poet]

That's right.

...not something we 2nd amendment supporters want to hear, but right.

The idea that the 'oi polloi should have the same weaponry as the army is quite insane.

...a relic of well intended but irrational Enlightenment thinking about the nature of the people (can't work against their own interests, etc).

The people should be armed so as to defend themselves from criminals, not so as to overthrow the government,

What should the people do if a Hitler comes to power?

 

[Swordsmyth]

That's right.

...not something we 2nd amendment supporters want to hear, but right.

The idea that the 'oi polloi should have the same weaponry as the army is quite insane.

...a relic of well intended but irrational Enlightenment thinking about the nature of the people (can't work against their own interests, etc).

Yes, but the limit is much higher than what we get now, pretty much anything man portable or crew served should be fair game, and almost anything bigger should be given to the militia.

 

[LibertyEagle]

The people should be armed so as to defend themselves from criminals, not so as to overthrow the government,

Which means you totally missed the intention of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Origanalist]

That's right.

...not something we 2nd amendment supporters want to hear, but right.

The idea that the 'oi polloi should have the same weaponry as the army is quite insane.

...a relic of well intended but irrational Enlightenment thinking about the nature of the people (can't work against their own interests, etc).

The people should be armed so as to defend themselves from criminals, not so as to overthrow the government,

Sig worthy.

 

[Swordsmyth]

That's right.

...not something we 2nd amendment supporters want to hear, but right.

The idea that the 'oi polloi should have the same weaponry as the army is quite insane.

...a relic of well intended but irrational Enlightenment thinking about the nature of the people (can't work against their own interests, etc).

The people should be armed so as to defend themselves from criminals, not so as to overthrow the government,

You changed it.
We need to be able to overthrow a tyrannical government.

 

[lilymc]

The people should be armed so as to defend themselves from criminals, not so as to overthrow the government,

That goes against what the founders said. You disagree with the idea that the people have the right to throw off a tyrannical government and institute new government?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

What should the people do if a Hitler comes to power?

Kill him, like the German Army tried to do.

Whether a weapon is "illegal" is of no consequence if you're the Great General Staff of the Prussian German Army.

In other words, you don't rely on a popular revolution.

You need liberals (or, at least, sane human beings) in the army.

You changed it.

We need to be able to overthrow a tyrannical government.

Who decides whether a state is tyrannical, and whether the revolutionary provisional government of Ruritania will be an improvement?

How sure are you that this "we" will include us?

Sig worthy.

Tell me about the wonders of popular revolutions.

Tell me about the millions slaughtered by the sans culottes, or the bolsheviks, or the Khmer Rouge.

That goes against what the founders said. You disagree with the idea that the people have the right to throw off a tyrannical government and institute new government?

That's correct.

The founders were well intended but mistaken.

They wrongly (very wrongly) assumed that any popular revolution would be in the interest of liberty.

...when, in fact, any popular revolution will almost certainly be illiberal (communist, in particular).

I'm not in favor of arming communists.