This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

14
15

What about nuclear weapons? (self.Anarcho_Capitalism)

Glola が 投稿

Who would have control over them in an ancap society, and how safe would the world be as opposed to how things are now? One might make the argument that you wouldn't want to hand over the power of the atom to the governments, as the rulers have been shown consistently to abuse the power they have... but

the way things are now, only governments have access to nuclear weapons. This means that any possible nuclear strike would be relatively easy to trace back to the state that performed the attack and thus the whole country (and especially the ones in power) would suffer retribution.

But if the whole societal structure would be decentralized as it would be in an anarchist society the prospective nuclear bombers would not share the same incentive to restraint with the wmds as the modern governments would. There's no government to order a retaliation strike, and there's no country where to target the retaliation strike. This of course assumes that it's easier to access nuclear weapons as a malicious entity in an anarchist society than in a statist society, but it seems to me that this would be the case.

Are the government monopolies on nuclear weapons keeping us all safer? Discuss.

edit: op has gone to have nightmares of nuclear devastation and will return upon the morning.

全 58 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]E7ernalDecline to State 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

If there was a weapon capable of killing millions of people indiscriminately I'd say the last entity that should have it is one as historically prone to committing atrocities as the State.

This of course assumes that it's easier to access nuclear weapons as a malicious entity in an anarchist society than in a statist society, but it seems to me that this would be the case.

Why do you think property security is no better in a stateless society where people are directly financially liable for their errors?

[–]BastiatFanBastiat 5ポイント6ポイント  (5子コメント)

The distinction between a nuclear weapon and a nuclear propulsion system for a spacecraft is an arbitrary one. I suspect any contracts (particularly insurance contracts) you enter into in an anarcho-capitalist society will stipulate that you not own or produce explosives of such and such explosive power unless you meet certain safety requirements (such as handling and storage), which will almost certainly include regular safety inspections.

I don't see why there's an issue here. You can make as large an explosion by piling up conventional explosives. Look at the explosion created by the Japanese warship Yamato. Is anyone going to say that defense companies can't own comparable warships? Wouldn't that violate their property?

I think Murray Rothbard was wrong on this issue. The only problem would be with the nuclear "weapons" already existing, which were created by the state. New ones would be so expensive to produce that those would be easily handled, but it's the same with large conventional explosives as well, which clearly have practical uses. This is a problem created by the state, and one that I think could be easily solved by the market (assuming the market was given time to work).

[–][deleted] 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Would you agree with the use of WMD's in any situation? In which cases innocents (people or property) must be inevitably damaged?

[–]BastiatFanBastiat 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

That's a good question. No, I wouldn't agree with their use against innocents. Like any other explosive, there are times and places where it's immoral to detonate a nuclear bomb. But there are also times and places where it's perfectly fine to detonate such a thing, such as in deep space (maybe they could be used for defensive purposes in space combat). I think that, for insurance or other market-based reasons, it wouldn't be possible to keep one of these things in a populated area. This would be different from governments, which build schools next to fertilizer plants. I view an anarcho-capitalist society as having rather strict property protections as part of its legal system. These rules would be voluntarily enforced, but for you to be able to function in society (rather than live alone on your property, which some people might choose to do--I certainly wouldn't see any problems arising between an anarcho-capitalist society and the few remaining hunter-gatherers), you would have to consent to lots of rules. If you didn't agree to follow those rules, then people wouldn't interact with you. You wouldn't be able to use a road, or get a credit card, and you certainly wouldn't be able to buy the materials to build a nuclear bomb.

Edit:

Also, there certainly are ways to threaten people with nuclear bombs, and I would treat that the same as threatening someone with a rifle. But a rifle on a rack isn't the same as a rifle pointed at your face, and a nuclear bomb in a warehouse isn't the same as a nuclear bomb that's threatening someone. That's where I disagree with Rothbard. I still don't think there would be nuclear bombs readily available or just sitting around. I don't agree with him on the ethics. I probably agree with him completely on what the actual society would look like.

Gas stations explode too. If someone has a gas station, are they threatening their neighbors? Would you be justified in going in and using violence against the owners of gas stations?

[–][deleted] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well, the difference with gas stations is that they're not built to explode. There are no triggers to initiate the bombs underground. You need some sort of outside force or action.

As for meteors, maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think nuclear would ever be necessary. I'm sure a less than nuclear missile could potentially solve that problem. Now, if nukes were needed, I think it'd be good for third parties to periodically check the hardware/software, to see what kind of coordinates the targeting system is willing to accept. (Is it limited to space.)

The other mention was water, in which case we have to consider property since everything is more than likely owned. By setting off large bombs in the ocean are you affecting the fishing population that belongs to someone else?

[–]Glola[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

This is the most interesting comment here, but I take a few issues with it:

The only problem would be with the nuclear "weapons" already existing, which were created by the state.

17 300 nuclear weapons exist today, worldwide. I don't think it's "only", it's a huge storage of weapons. Just a single one of these devices is enough to destroy a metropolitan city to the ground - not to even mention the environmental damage.

I don't see why there's an issue here. You can make as large an explosion by piling up conventional explosives. Look at the explosion created by the Japanese warship Yamato. Is anyone going to say that defense companies can't own comparable warships? Wouldn't that violate their property?

You certainly can make as large an explosion by piling up conventional explosives but nothing, absolutely nothing comes close to the ease with which you can wipe out a whole country with just one of these devices. You can load a warhead on a back of a truck.

Furthermore are you suggesting that defense companies should have access to wmds? I don't think the property argument applies here. Just owning one of those weapons risks the life of everyone else around, you need to make one mistake, and you blow everyone up. I think it infringes on the safety of other too much to be treated simply as an property issue. The only possible real life use of a nuclear weapon would by definition cause civilian casualties. Unless you do it in a testing situation in middle of the desert and plan to use it in "war" you are going to kill tens of thousands of innocent people. I don't neccessarily agree that people should have access to these weapons just because "lol propertyrights".

[–]BastiatFanBastiat 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't think it's "only"

I wasn't using the word 'only' to imply that it's a minor issue, but to clarify the scope of the problem.

And I do think it's a problem that could be dealt with by the market. If I was running an insurance company in an anarcho-capitalist society, I would buy up and destroy every nuclear bomb I could get my hands on to reduce the chance of it being used on something I insure and bankrupting me.

And I would hope people would be so terrified of the things that they would destroy them before allowing them to fall into the hands of people who would want to use them for harm. Maybe you could do something like a kickstarter to purchase the bombs to remove them from existence.

It's a problem, but it only applies to the already-existing nuclear bombs built by states. I don't think it would apply to new bombs that would be created in a pre-existing anarcho-capitalist society. I can easily see how those would be dealt with. It's removing the existing ones that is the problem. That's what I meant by 'only.'

Furthermore are you suggesting that defense companies should have access to wmds?

No. That's the Objectivists who believe in murdering innocents as 'defense.' I oppose the killing of innocents or any violations of property. I view such an opposition as central to anarcho-capitalist philosophy.

Just owning one of those weapons risks the life of everyone else around

Yes, but this also applies to automobiles, machine guns, spaceships (crash one of those into a major city and see what happens), gas stations, dams, molasses factories, and any number of other potentially-murderous devices. Would you outlaw asteroid mining, since someone could fire an asteroid into a major city? At some point, technology makes it easy to cause this kind of destruction. Having the capability to do so isn't the same as threatening to do so. If Superman was a real creature, we wouldn't be justified in killing him because he threatened us by his very nature. It would require some active threat on his part to justify that.

The only possible real life use of a nuclear weapon would by definition cause civilian casualties.

No, that's not true. They can be used to propel spaceships. Look up Project Orion.

Further, as I already pointed out, they could be used as purely defensive weapons in outer space combat. If you want to defend your asteroid colony from North Korean attack ships, then go right ahead and use nuclear bombs. I don't have any problem with that.

I think it infringes on the safety of other too much to be treated simply as an property issue.

This is the fundamental disagreement we have. You think there's some arbitrary line that can be drawn, where on one side there is a morally acceptable level of potential danger, and on the other side a morally unacceptable level of potential danger.

How do you know it's too much? Who determines what too much is? It's arbitrary. That goes against the notion of objective property rules that I find so enticing about anarcho-capitalism.

Somehow you think that bombs capable of killing ten thousand people are fine (or whatever the number is), yet somehow once you cross the threshold to ten thousand and one, then you've crossed a moral threshold. I don't see how that could be.

If space aliens from another star system showed up in Mars orbit one day, would you be in favor of sending men with guns to take away the nuclear bombs that propel their ships through space? I think that's what it comes down to: what are you willing to do to enforce your preferred rules against other people.

Would it be immoral for them to defend themselves? That has to be what you're saying here. If it's moral for you to take away the aliens' bombs, then it can't be moral for them to defend themselves.

My view is that those bombs are their property, and that we need to find a peaceful way to convince them not to use those bombs in ways that violate our property. I think that's possible to do. I don't think attacking people who have nuclear bombs is the right way to go about not having nuclear bombs used against you. That's often the reason why people want to possess nuclear bombs in the first place: as a deterrent. MAD might be insane, but so far it has been effective. Even if you ignored the morality of the situation, I don't think trying to forcibly remove nuclear bombs from people is going to have the desired outcome here.

[–][deleted] 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Nuclear weapons are very expensive, as are enrichment facilities to make weapons-grade material.

If nukes were cheap, and if their fuel had no uses beyond war, I'd be a little bit worried. The reality, though, is that before long, all types of nuclear fuel will be in high demand as energy.

Bottom line, I'd be much more afraid of conventional weapons than nuclear ones. And I'm not very much afraid of those.

I'll add: all nukes are good for is to hold the world hostage and threaten fireign governments. Just as I'd expect less war in ancapistan, I'd expect fewer games of chicken with a-bombs.

Another addition: Large nukes aren't very efficient forms of weapons in terms of their destructive impact. In general, many smaller weapons are better because the surface area of their shock waves is smaller--for big weapons, lots of their energy is used sending shock waves up into space.

Thus, energy is better used to perform useful work rather than in building enormous weapons.

[–]kurtu5 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Nuclear weapons are very expensive

Yes. Now. But what about in a society with a fairly mature molecular nanotechnology capability? Of course, nuke in such a world would not be as "dangerous" as grey goo, but you get the point.

My goto answer is that nukes in such a world would be a nuisance and cause the people who have been vaporized to have to restore their personalities from backups, thus losing a few hours/days of subjective time.

[–][deleted] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Haha. Yeah that's true.

Well, I would still vastly prefer cheap nukes in the hands of private firms than on the back of a SWAT truck.

I personally think the argument that fuel would be more valuable than weapons is a good one.

[–]nobody25864Omnia vi superans rationis, et arte loquendi 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Walter Block's Towards a Universal Libertarian Theory of Gun Control yet. Best analysis of this problem that I've seen!

[–]Roh234Agorist Transhuman 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

You can make one in your house for around ~$100,000 while avoiding the state. Look up the nuclear boy scout and Teller-Ulam diagrams for nukes and the wikipedia articles. You may not be able to make a tactical nuke or 50MT monster but you can make a nuke that can level NYC at home without being detected.

I'm probably on a watch list for the stuff I googled.

[–]Eric578Agorist/Voluntaryist 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

another state created problem that we'll have to solve when governments collapse. Thanks paranoid war mongering governments!

Hopefully they'll be disassembled and used to fuel nuclear power plants, or nuclear powered spacecraft.

[–]donewiththiscrapbasic moral principles 1ポイント2ポイント  (8子コメント)

I would like to throw out the fact that if it wasn't for the state, likely nuclear weapons would not exist.

Google thorium reactors. Essentially it is a possible nuclear energy superior to uranium (ex. it cannot melt down, consumes nuclear waste instead of making it, the fuel is ubiquitous, etc.) but it cannot be weaponized. So of course, government chose the weaponizable form.

Think of the horrors that will only exist in the future because of the state that otherwise would never exist, just as weaponized nuclear technology most likely would not exist.

[–]Snowden2016 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Weaponized nuclear technologies would most certainly exist regardless of whether a state ever existed.

[–]donewiththiscrapbasic moral principles 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

I don't think so simply because what private entity would be able and willing to throw billions into doing the research? And to what gain? With a gun you can go and steal someone capital, nukes on the other had destroy all capital.

[–]Snowden2016 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

With nukes you can blackmail. "Give me lots of money or I will blow you the fuck up!"

[–]johnnybgoode17 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I would like to throw out the fact that if it wasn't for the state, likely nuclear weapons would not exist.

Terrifying how much people have put up with.

[–]Glola[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

I would like to throw out the fact that if it wasn't for the state, likely nuclear weapons would not exist.

Irrelevant. They do exist and what is done is done. We have to deal with the existence of nuclear weaponry but pointing fingers and denying the fact that WMDs are reality is not going to help.

[–]donewiththiscrapbasic moral principles 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

It is totally relevant because your question/thesis is that we need governments to protect us from nukes. However, my point is that the threat of nukes would likely not exist except for governments (and that likely in the future there will be government generated technology worse than nukes), essentially making your point that we need the government to protect us from the horrors they have created themselves, while putting up with the next generation of wmds that they will create, which we will need the government to protect us from, while they create the next generation of wmds...

It's like an abused person going back to their abuser for protection. Once again we have an instance where if you apply the same logic to another situation, it makes absolutely no sense at all, but the the state get some special set of rules to work with.

[–]Glola[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

It is totally relevant because your question/thesis is that we need governments to protect us from nukes.

First of all, that's not what I said. I posed a question and put forth a devil's advocate argument. And if you had read my comments on this thread you'd know that I'm not exactly placing any high hopes on the governments either on this matter. Not at any point did I assert that we definitely need the governments to protect us: I was asking a question.

Secondly, you would be a fool to believe that the technology to create and manufacture ever more destructive weaponry would cease in a free market society. Governments are not the only entities who want to gain new weapons. There is a demand for new weapons, not only because of their destructive power, but also because of their possible applications in science.

Thirdly, it is a very lazy mentality to simply start pointing fingers when the actual question was asking solutions:

Who would have control over them in an ancap society, and how safe would the world be as opposed to how things are now? ... Are the government monopolies on nuclear weapons keeping us all safer? Discuss.

I did not ask who is to blame. Anarcho-Capitalism is one of the most consistent political philosophies that I know of, but too often the mentality here is to look for who is responsible for whatever problem at hand (the government) rather than providing actual solutions.

The fact is that WMDs exist, and this was the premise of my question: how would the existence of these weapons be handled in a free society? Your answer did not address this question and was inane at best.

[–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

[deleted]

    [–]Glola[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I'd imagine millions of people would gladly pay some money to see the entire stock of nuclear warheads dismantled.

    But there's so many questions on how this would be done! How can we trust that all of them are dismantled? It only takes one to cause destruction beyond imagination. Who does the dismantling? How do we know what is the agenda of the people who have access to the weapons right know? Would they be willing to depart of their passwords and security measures for someone to destroy the weapons? Do we even know the location and the exact number of all the wmds inside the country?

    Granted, I do think we should have some in space just in case we need them to break up one big rock into a bunch of tiny ones.

    Hah, a good one. Though who would maintain that satellite warhead system? If you gain access to that system you're one click away from sending that nuke to anywhere on earth. Who can we trust to do this? All this is not to say that I trust the government on this but that's the thing: I am very unwilling to trust anyone with such power.

    [–][deleted] 0ポイント1ポイント  (31子コメント)

    Because weapons of mass destruction can not be aimed at an individual and must in all realistic possibilities harm innocent people or property when used, the very existence of one is a threat and having one at all would be not good.

    [–]NackskottsromantikerAsshole 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

    If the state(s) was peacefully dismantled I imagine the nukes to become dismantled as well.

    [–][deleted] -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Yup.

    [–]Glola[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (9子コメント)

    It wouldn't be good, that's for sure. But the fact is that these weapons exist. If the state(s) is eventually going to be abolished the wmds that it posesses would go somewhere. And some people would want to use them.

    Religious terrorists might want to use them against a whole population they deem to be corrupt and worthy of destruction. The only thing I'm asking is: what's stopping them?

    It would be naive to assume that people who seek to aquire these weapons and use them would simply drop these aspirations when the state falls and adhere to property rights and NAP with the rest of the society.

    [–][deleted] -1ポイント0ポイント  (8子コメント)

    What's stopping them? What's stopping most potential murderers from killing others? Law enforcement. You can't stop all murders. But with nukes, currently highly secure, and in specific locations it's not like it's, "Run in, take as many nukes as you can, throw 'em in the back of your truck, we're goin' duck huntin! Yeee haw!!!".. "Wait, what about these thick steel walls and 15 codes only known by memory?! Dammit Bobby!"

    In a slow destruction of the state, there would be a slow destruction of nukes. That is, as they begin to lose money and support, they can't maintain the nuke systems anymore.

    In an imaginary push the button, the state is gone overnight situation, those people sworn to protect the nukes would probably still do it. Remember, even statists care. They're misguided, but they care, and there's a reason they choose the people they do to work with wmd's. Not that this magical situation would happen.

    [–]Glola[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

    You make good points, but how would this law enforcement against nuclear weapons be organized? As you rightly pointed out, nukes have lots of security currently, yet this security as well as maintenance and the staff looking after them cost money. If there's nobody to fund this (as there probably wouldn't be in absence of taxation) what's stopping the nuke watchers selling the nukes for profit? Or when they need to cut security, somebody stealing them?

    In a slow destruction of the state, there would be a slow destruction of nukes. That is, as they begin to lose money and support, they can't maintain the nuke systems anymore.

    Yes, nukes are costly, but some people would be willing to pay a significant amount of money for them. You don't have to maintain the bomb for long, if you know when and where you want to blow it up. You merely need the capital (or the force) to aquire it.

    [–][deleted] 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

    There doesn't need to be a special nuke watcher team. We're just talking about police. So, there are records of how many nukes there are right? If nukes were deemed to be a dangerous tool (as they are) you look at those. Say, "Dismantle these, it's not an option." If they refuse, they're arrested, and you get someone else to do it.

    If they're sold, that's a crime. That's not to say it wouldn't happen. But if it did, I don't think it'd be too hard to track the movement of the weapons. (Even the mafia couldn't pull that off.)

    Really the answer doesn't have to be any different than a current situation. What if the U.S. sold nukes to a country? Oh wait... they do this. But they can do this because they have the authority to do so, a monopoly on authority, there's no one to tell them no. And so we spin back around to the base idea of anarcho-capitalism -> competition. Without that monopoly on force, it is finally possible to get rid of these dangers.

    [–]Glola[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

    Good points yet again. I still feel very paranoid about the issue nontheless. It is simply a very scary subject.

    [–][deleted] 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

    I know. I can't really solve that issue for you. lol But anarcho-capitalism is very flexible. The only limit to solutions is the human mind of every individual on earth. Maybe you could come up with something more concrete with some thought. :D

    [–]Glola[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

    I'll be sure to think about it and if I can come up with a detailed solution, I will probably post it here. Btw, I'm sure we just got added to some watchlist for talking about nuclear terrorism on an anarchist forum.

    [–][deleted] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Nah, I'm sure we're good.

    Obama bomb nuclear assassinate

    [–]TheRealPariahspecial snowflake -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

    What do you mean by "law enforcement"? What is your evidence to make the claim, "What's stopping most potential murderers from killing others? Law enforcement"?

    [–][deleted] -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

    What?

    [–]E7ernalDecline to State -3ポイント-2ポイント  (6子コメント)

    Weapons of mass destruction are perfectly legitimate tools against States. In fact, I think they're required, because they're the only thing that keeps States from invading.

    What's that? You want to put troops on our streets? How about we annihilate your central bureaucracies and legislature?

    Politicians don't like attacking people who can strike back at them - they just want to send other people to absorb the bullets.

    [–][deleted] 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

    You, as someone with a piss poor and irredeemable reputation and someone who has a tendency to treat people like shit for fun, do not get recognition. I don't give a damn about what you have to say, EVER. Don't reply to me.

    [–]E7ernalDecline to State -1ポイント0ポイント  (4子コメント)

    You seemed to care a lot right now.

    Why are you so angry?

    [–][削除されました]  (2子コメント)

    [deleted]

      [–]E7ernalDecline to State 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

      *You're

      [–]Snowden2016 -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Because your wasting his time.

      [–][deleted] -5ポイント-4ポイント  (11子コメント)

      I was at least expecting some sort of utopianism about how nuclear weapons will just disappear thanks to the glorious market god and its righteous hand, but apparently AnCap's are still convinced one company isn't going to target its competitor's property with a nuclear weapon to put them out of business.

      [–][deleted] 2ポイント3ポイント  (10子コメント)

      Do people respond to you positively? What are you doing here if you don't care about anything but being an asshole?

      [–][deleted] -5ポイント-4ポイント  (9子コメント)

      I just happen to be one of the many, many people that dislikes rule by rich people.

      [–][deleted] 1ポイント2ポイント  (8子コメント)

      You won't learn anything by acting like a brat. It's probably why you have no idea what you're talking about right now. -Online Civility

      [–][deleted] -5ポイント-4ポイント  (7子コメント)

      When it comes to Libertarians, anything they disagree with is either a strawman, statist propaganda or is just cast off as ignorance. On the contrary if I was on a subreddit where I wouldn't inevitably be swarmed by a downvote brigade, I'd definitely smash your entire ideology into the floor as I have done many, many times elsewhere (although I dont take the credit, thorough arguments against AnCaps and Libertarians are easy to make, AnCap itself is an oxymoron and an embarrassment to actual Anarchism). Why i'm here? I was bored.

      [–]highdrachillin' out praxin' relaxin' all cool 3ポイント4ポイント  (5子コメント)

      if I was on a subreddit where I wouldn't inevitably be swarmed by a downvote brigade, I'd definitely smash your entire ideology into the floor as I have done many, many times elsewhere

      lulz

      The only thing more pathetic than hearing a "If I was __, then I'd __," threat is seeing it on the internet. Yeah, I bet if you were in a more rational and neutral subreddit comprised of educated people, something like /r/politics, then I'm sure the reception would be great. You do realize that upvotes / downvotes don't mean your right / wrong, right?

      Go ahead, why don't you smash our entire ideology into the floor. Let's see what you got. Come at me bro.

      [–][deleted] 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

      Bet he won't.

      [–]damiswordVoluntaryist 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

      And bet he can't.

      [–][deleted] 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

      No, r/politics is liberal tard land, they're even worse than the Libertarians. I'm talking about subreddits like r/DebateFascism and r/DebateCommunism where people from all over the political spectrum engage in productive debate. You'll find your ideas are often ripped apart there, even by people as low as the Neo-Nazis.

      By the way, as for the downvotes thing, does it say right/wrong, nope. Does it say "WE HAVE NO INTEREST IN ACTUAL PRODUCTIVE DEBATE MOB RULE TRIUMPHS" yes.

      [–]damiswordVoluntaryist 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

      /r/LibertarianDebates

      Please destroy us there.

      [–][deleted] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      There is just a Libertarian circlejerk for the most part. Libertarians are too used to being unquestioned (they intentionally choose and stick to attacking easy Liberal and Conservative crackpot targets) and operate in an Ochlocratic fashion when faced with logical and well-constructed opposition, they need to be in a mob of their own to even remotely hold up in the face of opposing arguments, as fifty people screaming strawman and downvoting anyone questioning that holds up better than one guy screaming strawman. I find once again, that in communities where political ideologies are more varied or widely unaccepted, you get less internet ochlocracy. For instance, general Reddit is a Liberal ochlocracy; r/DebateFascism is the most consistent when it comes to debating as not only are the Fascists so varied as to barely be a unified force, but there are also many, many other fringe ideologies present from across the political spectrum, making numbers so small its impossible for downvote mobs and keyboard bashing mobs to even form let alone be remotely effective. There, you must win depending solely on your own arguments, not on the mob assistance of others.

      [–]Snowden2016 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      You're seriously not going to reply? I smell cowardice.

      [–]starrychloe2 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

      A bomb is like a gun pointed in all directions at once. It is a threat of violence. Military d efense firms will control nukes. All financial loans and mortgages will require military defense insurance. No lender wants to risk their collateral being destroyed. You can subscribe to Hippy Defense which has no nukes or Jarhead Defense with many nukes. Time will tell which one wins a bigger market share.

      [–]BastiatFanBastiat 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

      A bomb is like a gun pointed in all directions at once. It is a threat of violence.

      So a gas station is necessarily threatening the McDonald's next door?

      [–]starrychloe2 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

      Gas stations are not meant to blow up. But if you wanted to build a LNG plant next to a school you will no doubt experience a lot of sabotage or protests or worse.

      [–]BastiatFanBastiat 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Gas stations are not meant to blow up.

      So it's about intentions?

      But if you wanted to build a LNG plant next to a school you will no doubt experience a lot of sabotage or protests or worse.

      In an anarcho-capitalist society, I don't think you'd be able to do that. Either the land would come with conditions, or your insurance wouldn't cover it, or whichever judicial system you were subscribed to would prohibit it, or the road service that leads to the land would prohibit it, or someone would just pay you not to build the thing.

      The problem would come in when someone wanted to build a school next door to an existing LNG plant. I don't know much about those plants, but presumably the insurance costs of doing so would be so high as to make the school uneconomical.

      [–]antarcticocapitalist 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      I think of it this way. What is a WMD? Something that costs a lot of money and is guaranteed to produce a loss. Even if you take out an enemy, you wipe out their resources in the process.

      In a free market, a WMD would have absolutely no purpose. Only organizations that earn their money by stealing, therefore having no need to worry about expense and returns, would produce one. That's why they're all made through government contract.

      I think existing nukes would be defused, because nobody would buy them. Guaranteed waste of money, and can only bring harm to anyone involved. The voluntary transaction that would take place regarding WMD is obvious.