OIers: Do I have the right to own a nuclear device?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

If I'm able to acquire a nuclear device through legal and/or ethical means, should I be allowed to own it? Bombs do constitute property, and I'm allowed complete ownership over my property, after all.

On a similar path, if I acquire one of those sirens used to alert citizens about a tornado, why should I be prevented from using it? You don't own the air. Your labor doesn't mix with the air. :laugh:

[Die Neue Zeit]

Why settle for "fat" bombs when mobile ICBM platforms will suffice? :D :laugh:

[pusher robot]

If I'm able to acquire a nuclear device through legal and/or ethical means, should I be allowed to own it? Bombs do constitute property, and I'm allowed complete ownership over my property, after all.
That would not be possible, because the use of radiological materials is strictly regulated by the Department of Energy. Construction of a nuclear "device" (by which I assume you mean "bomb" and not "reactor") would not be an approved use. Obviously, we do not live in a society with an absolutist scheme of property rights, nor of any other kind of rights, and the most people are happy with that.


On a similar path, if I acquire one of those sirens used to alert citizens about a tornado, why should I be prevented from using it? You don't own the air. Your labor doesn't mix with the air. :laugh:
There is a well-established field of tort law going back many centuries dealing with "nuisances." Your use of the siren would undoubtedly be a nuisance to those that can hear it and that would render you liable for all the inconvenience and material loss that your use of it would cause. In all probability there are municipal ordinances or criminal statutes that you would be violating as well. On the other hand, if the law permitted it, and you promised only to use it when there was actual danger, then I don't see any reason why you should be prevented from using it. Likewise, one oughtn't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, free speech rights notwithstanding - unless of course the theater is on fire.

Hope that helps.

[Sharon den Adel]

If I'm able to acquire a nuclear device through legal and/or ethical means, should I be allowed to own it? Bombs do constitute property, and I'm allowed complete ownership over my property, after all.

I am of the belief that no one, no matter who you are, should own nuclear weapons or devices.
So I say no, you should not be allowed to own a nuclear device.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Ah, Pusher Robot subscribes to logic and not phony idealism. Glad to hear it. :)

[duckyfeets1]

If I'm able to acquire a nuclear device through legal and/or ethical means, should I be allowed to own it? Bombs do constitute property, and I'm allowed complete ownership over my property, after all.

On a similar path, if I acquire one of those sirens used to alert citizens about a tornado, why should I be prevented from using it? You don't own the air. Your labor doesn't mix with the air. :laugh:


Well, dear, assuming that you are actually rich enough to buy either of those commodities, the question lies at why do you want to own them. Are you an idiot? Bored? A sociopath? Ect.

Also, should you own them, why would you want to use them? Do you hate people that much? Or you the biggest ass that any of us have ever met? Ect?


The government is all of those things, when you speak of using it for regulation (which I assumed is what you are alluding to here). They own those things, and are willing to use them. There is next to no cost for them to maintain nuclear weapons, and should the president feel like it, he, as commander in chief, can send it off for no real reason. So why should we approve of this?

The typical billionaire does not even have the means available to maintain a nuclear weapon of an alert siren. Why not just spend your money on things you would get a return from? Like jets, or islands, or things you can actually USE? You most likely would could not use a nuclear weapon for fear of retaliation. So thats about a billion dollars a year down the drain.



So, why is this question of such importance to you?

[Kami]

So, why is this question of such importance to you?
O.o... dude, it was almost certainly a hypothetical question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_question).

[duckyfeets1]

Lol. I know. But it still doesnt take away the importance of the situation to the person asking :-)

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Well, dear, assuming that you are actually rich enough to buy either of those commodities, the question lies at why do you want to own them.What's it matter? Do I have to explain to you my purpose for buying a tub of lubrication? If I want a nuclear device, and I have the money available to make the purchase, you shouldn't be interfering in my property rights.


Also, should you own them, why would you want to use them? Do you hate people that much? Or you the biggest ass that any of us have ever met? Ect?If you must know, I want to create a nuclear holocaust so Jesus will come down faster on his steed. :drool:


The typical billionaire does not even have the means available to maintain a nuclear weapon of an alert siren. Why not just spend your money on things you would get a return from? Like jets, or islands, or things you can actually USE? You most likely would could not use a nuclear weapon for fear of retaliation. So thats about a billion dollars a year down the drain.My investment is through blackmail. I'll request that each billionaire give me a 10% return, or else I blow up a major city of my choice.


So why should we approve of this?We shouldn't. We should privatize our nuclear arsenals. :)

[Baconator]

Hey GC , I see you're playing statist today. :D

Question:

Would you rather a group of individuals called the 'government' own these things with the explicit purpose of using them for war ... do realize how the government 'pays' for such projects?

Private individuals never built such a bomb without state directive and only states have ever used such weapons.

So I believe it stands to reason that an alternative is certainly necessary lest we comfort ourselves with the death of countless souls to save the integrity of the state...

If you believe an alternative is better, do you have any ideas?

[Baconator]

PS: Come on Skype. Lets talk about it. :D

[duckyfeets1]

My investment is through blackmail. I'll request that each billionaire give me a 10% return, or else I blow up a major city of my choice.


O wait, so youre basically a state, then?

Youre taking the position of a politician. Good on ya, mate. You play that card well enough to make me believe you are one.

There is no one out there who can afford to privately keep a nuclear weapon. Those that come close spend their money on things that are useful to them. In fact, the only entities that are able to keep one are states. And why? Because they do not pay for them.

All a state is is a group of individuals who coerce money out of those below them, claiming morality and right in doing so. And yet, we rally behind them, saying "Yes! Own the nuclear warhead! That way individuals cannot!"

The truth of the matter is that the president can push the big red button on a whim, and not have to explain himself afterwords. Its his right as the president. And yet, we still support it! And we couch this support in impossible scenarios like the one you propose. Saying, "O, if we take the state away, and take out the power from under this man, he will blow us all up!" Instead of looking at it through the eye of reality and saying, "O, he wont be able to maintain it without our tax support, and it will torn down and the parts recycled."

So yes, lets still sit in the wonderful land of impossibilities and disregard reality some more. Thats the productive thing to do.


Regardless, Gene, what do you propose that we should do should this increadibly unlikely possibility pop up?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Would you rather a group of individuals called the 'government' own these things with the explicit purpose of using them for war ... do realize how the government 'pays' for such projects?I would rather nuclear devices be owned by public institutions which require oversight, yes. I'm not aware of the current procedures necessary for a president dropping at the whim of his desires (other than the majority of the Cabinet and VP appealing to Congress), so I'd have to evaluate the possibility of Duyba just pushing a button.


Hey GC , I see you're playing statist today. :DApparently logic translated into statism.


Private individuals never built such a bomb without state directive and only states have ever used such weapons.[...] which has nothing to do with my desire to own a nuclear device once the Department of Energy is privatized.


So I believe it stands to reason that an alternative is certainly necessary lest we comfort ourselves with the death of countless souls to save the integrity of the state...Only two atomic bombs were used for intentional d/g/n/ocide in the past seventy years. Coincidentally, by the proclaimed champion of capitalism. MAD works pretty well to deflect major combat. Somehow I doubt selling nuclear weapons to Osama Bin Ladin, Bill Gates, and Dick Cheney would make us any safer.


If you believe an alternative is better, do you have any ideas?
Public ownership, obviously. Regulation through cooperative associations. You know, the logical and anti-statist route.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Regardless, Gene, what do you propose that we should do should this increadibly unlikely possibility pop up?

Invest in corporations which build bomb shelters.


The truth of the matter is that the president can push the big red button on a whim, and not have to explain himself afterwords. Its his right as the president. And yet, we still support it!

Where in my posts is there any indication that I favor such irrational republicanism? I don't even support the POTUS, let alone most of his executive privileges. I am actually an adamant critic of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


So yes, lets still sit in the wonderful land of impossibilities and disregard reality some more. Thats the productive thing to do.

I am just drawing the logical conclusion to property rights. Why are you such a statist? Don't you support my right to own property? If you don't allow me to own a nuclear device, the state will intrude and prevent you from owning pornography, and toothbrushes! :scared:


All a state is is a group of individuals who coerce money out of those below them, claiming morality and right in doing so. And yet, we rally behind them, saying "Yes! Own the nuclear warhead! That way individuals cannot!"

You're talking to an anarchist. The difference between Baconator and myself is that I'm not caught up in phony idealism. ;)


Youre taking the position of a politician. Good on ya, mate. You play that card well enough to make me believe you are one.

By extension of the term I probably am one.

[Baconator]

I would rather nuclear devices be owned by public institutions which require oversight, yes. I'm not aware of the current procedures necessary for a president dropping, so I'd have to evaluate the possibility of Duyba just pushing a button.



Apparently logic translated into statism.



[...] which has nothing to do with my desire to own a nuclear device once the Department of Energy is privatized.



Only two atomic bombs were used for intentional d/g/n/ocide in the past seventy years. MAD works pretty well to deflect major combat. Somehow I doubt selling nuclear weapons to Osama Bin Ladin, Bill Gates, and Dick Cheney would make us any safer.


[FONT=Arial]
Public ownership, obviously. Regulation through cooperative associations. You know, the logical and anti-statist route.


Logic you say? Well lets look at rationality and logic.
It appears you are concerned with nuclear devices falling into the hands of a few individuals which we're calling 'private.' Yet, the 'public' sector is merely comprised of a few individuals fundamentally no different than you , I , or anyone else. I wonder if they posses anymore humanity than either of us. So, what you are saying is that you oppose nuclear devices being in the charge of a few individuals but you also support nuclear devices being in the hands of a few individuals. Contradiction. That is not logical my friend.

The individuals that comprise the 'public' or the 'state' are not really accountable to any objective standard since they subjectively legislate their own standards. If you believe these individuals are truly accountable to everyone else then I have to call you a statist or statist sympathizer you see.

Again, you've attempted to parade logic here but your reasoning is irrational. Back to the drawing board. :rolleyes:

[Baconator]

Btw , I'm the idealist? I'm not the technocrat remember? I'm not the one talking about post-scarcity 'economics.' I accept that virtually all inputs are finite and require economization.

Idealism. Meh.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Are you actually arguing the world is just as safe if a nuclear weapon is owned by a single individual as opposed to the community? If global regulation forbids the production of nuclear bombs, is that statism to you? One lune with a red button and a bag of cash (or a very, very, friendly life partner) is disastrous. Ironically, the best way to deal with nuclear devices is to provide their oversight with scathing bureaucracy.

Even Rothbard in his rightward swing would ask you to consult with a sociologist. :laugh:

[duckyfeets1]

Where in my posts is there any indication that I favor such irrational republicanism? I don't even support the POTUS, let alone most of his executive privileges. I am actually an adamant critic of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


The "we" I used in this case was generalistic, which I applied to the country as a whole. Sorry that wasnt obvious to you.




I am just drawing the logical conclusion to property rights. Why are you such a statist? Don't you support my right to own property? If you don't allow me to own a nuclear device, the state will intrude and prevent you from owning pornography, and toothbrushes! :scared:


Me? Statist? Honey, youre off by a couple of months. I completely hate the state. Nice try to twist my words tho.




You're talking to an anarchist. The difference between Baconator and myself is that I'm not caught up in phony idealism. ;)



Wait, Im confused. What is the phony idealism here?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Btw , I'm the idealist? I'm not the technocrat remember? I'm not the one talking about post-scarcity 'economics.' I accept that virtually all inputs are finite and require economization.

Idealism. Meh.

You accept a false idol, yes.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The "we" I used in this case was generalistic, which I applied to the country as a whole. Sorry that wasnt obvious to you.

How very ... collectivist.


Me? Statist? Honey, youre off by a couple of months. I completely hate the state. Nice try to twist my words tho.

Do you or do you not wish to regulate private ownership over nuclear weapons. If yes, I - as a very functional reductionist for capitalism - can conclude that you are a statist for believing that MY property should be determined by the community's standards. How dare you; how dare you.


Wait, Im confused. What is the phony idealism here?

It can be summarized as anarcho-capitalism, or neo-feudalism. Same difference.

[Baconator]

Are you actually arguing the world is just as safe if a nuclear weapon is owned by a single individual as opposed to the community? If global regulation forbids the production of nuclear bombs, is that statism to you? One lune with a red button and a bag of cash (or a very, very, friendly life partner) is disastrous. Ironically, the best way to deal with nuclear devices is to provide their oversight with scathing bureaucracy.

Even Rothbard in his rightward swing would ask you to consult with a sociologist. :laugh:



I never said that and thats a straw man. I was pointing out that there is nothing fundamentally different than individual human beings that call themselves 'the government' and other individuals and thus there is no difference in the ownership argument unless its perpetuated by myth that the 'state' is something greater than the individuals that comprise it.
It appears that you're suggesting a global government of sorts or else how else would regulation be universal and enforced? If this is your position then you are fundamentally a statist.

The argument from effect comparing what incentives exist for a state and for individuals in free market anarchism to deploy such weapons is another issue altogether. I was just pointing out your statism or your many statist positions is all. :D

[duckyfeets1]

How very ... collectivist.

How so? Because Im using generalized english?




Do you or do you not wish to regulate private ownership over nuclear weapons. If yes, I - as a very functional reductionist for capitalism - can conclude that you are a statist for believing that MY property should be determined by the community's standards. How dare you; how dare you.

Actually, I dont wish to regulate private ownership. I thought that was apparent by my blatant use of sarcasm, and obvious distaste for, throughout whenever I said anything concerning the state.




It can be summarized as anarcho-capitalism, or neo-feudalism. Same difference.

O, guess Im in the same boat then. Woops. I always thought that trusting in the natural law and order of economics was better than blatantly contradicting the NAP with socialist anarchy.

[Baconator]

It can be summarized as anarcho-capitalism, or neo-feudalism. Same difference.

This is 'phony idealism?' Hmm.Bordering on tautology. Idealism by definition isn't real ( in the present.) :laugh:

Ok Mr.Post-Scarcity. I'm a 'phony idealist.' Gotcha.

[Robert]

This thread would have been more lively, and interesting, if the starter had stated the general point up front:

"If the capitalist does not have the right to own everything, then (ha, ha, ha!) he does not have the right to own anything." Or something like that.

The coherent libertarian, if there is one, cannot but answer "yes, you have the right to own the fruit of your labor. So if you buy or build your own nuclear device with materials purchased at arms length, it's yours as a matter of property, not to mention the Second Amendment [to the U.S. Constitution]": A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The libertarian's point is a silly on one extreme as the anarchist's is on the other. He reads to much into the Second Amendment and ignores the state's power of expropriation and regulation, as Pusher already explained. Or he disputes it, I suppose would be more accurate. He might as well piss against the wind. No one but Ayn Rand is going to waste time disputing that "the people," unless insane, can override individual rights of any color in the name of public safety, or in this case, survival.

As to the Second Amendment, we'll never get to the bottom of what it was intended to mean, never mind what it does mean. Since you angry young revolutionaries will be repealing (in your dreams, I mean) my constitution, it's academic, isn't it?

It's also academic because there is no technology to make a nuclear "firearm" anyway. (You could as easily make a one-inch-long, fully-functioning jet airplane.)

If the Second Amendment consecrates an individual right, and personally I don't think it does, though we can argue about it, it doesn't protect any individual right to store smallpox, anthrax, mustard gas, or any of a number of other noxious materials. The framers were thinking muskets, not nukes. (Bazookas, machine guns, sawed off shotguns and Stinger missiles are the real *****es to analyze under the constitution.)

So my answer to this question is "no." Because you may only "own" a nuclear weapon: 1) if you don't steal it or its components parts; 2) so long as it actually is a "firearm," which it won't be; and 3) when and if you figure out how to make one, which you won't do.

And even if you can and do, the state can take it away from you under its police, regulatory and expropriation powers. Which it will.

So ... pass zee Grey Poupon.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

So far we've established that Robert and Pusher are both pragmatic liberals who recognize that property rights derive from standards, negating the very foundation of capitalism. :)

[pusher robot]

So far we've established that Robert and Pusher are both pragmatic liberals who recognize that property rights derive from standards, negating the very foundation of capitalism. :)

I'm reaching the point with you where I am simply going to dismiss all of your posts as trolls. Rather than very rudely ask what you think are "gotcha questions" for the purpose of putting words in my mouth, why not just ask my opinion directly, and if you disagree, state why in a direct fashion? Do you lack the intellectual fortitude? Or do you simply have a perverse desire to create division where none exists?

Regardless, what you say I think doesn't even begin to make sense. "Rights derive from standards?" What the hell does that mean? "Standards?" Like ISO-9000 certified? "Standards" negate "capitalism?" What is this nonsense?

Take a position and make an argument already.

[Robert]

The only thing "established" is that: 1) no one claims the right to own nuclear weapons; and 2) Socrates you ain't.

Go check your stock portfolio and start a new thread.

[Dr Mindbender]

If I'm able to acquire a nuclear device through legal and/or ethical means, should I be allowed to own it? Bombs do constitute property, and I'm allowed complete ownership over my property, after all.




Clearly America doesnt think the governments of N.Korea and Iran have the right to own Nuclear bombs.

[pusher robot]

Clearly America doesnt think the governments of N.Korea and Iran have the right to own Nuclear bombs.

Rights are for humans, not governments.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I'm reaching the point with you where I am simply going to dismiss all of your posts as trolls. Rather than very rudely ask what you think are "gotcha questions" for the purpose of putting words in my mouth, why not just ask my opinion directly, and if you disagree, state why in a direct fashion? Do you lack the intellectual fortitude? Or do you simply have a perverse desire to create division where none exists?

Regardless, what you say I think doesn't even begin to make sense. "Rights derive from standards?" What the hell does that mean? "Standards?" Like ISO-9000 certified? "Standards" negate "capitalism?" What is this nonsense?

Take a position and make an argument already.

I made this thread with the expectation that anarcho-capitalists would try to weasel around the topic in an attempt to fit their utopian visage. I was right. You have an awful time accepting ideas heterodox to your own. The implifications of your response was that you do not believe in a defined right to property, which undermines the core argument to all of capitalism.

So far I've established:

- I'm a statist because I don't want loud music waking me up at 3 o-clock in the morning.
- Some believe mixing labor with the earth constitutes property acquisition, and by defeault (for no definable reason) air and mineral rights come with it. I'm a statist for questioning why.
- I'm a statist for saying individuals don't have the right to own nuclear weapons.

I asked for your response in the topic title. I don't have the time or available space to address you by name in every single post I make in OI. You responded, and I commented on your response. It's actually quite simple. :)

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The only thing "established" is that: 1) no one claims the right to own nuclear weapons; and 2) Socrates you ain't.

Go check your stock portfolio and start a new thread.

The anarcho-feudalists haven't given me a definitive answer. I want to know how I'm a statist for believing nuclear weapons shouldn't be bought and sold on the free market. Don't get so cranky over the shortfalls of other theories similar to your own. I'm actually glad to read you have some common sense locked up in there.

[duckyfeets1]

The anarcho-feudalists haven't given me a definitive answer.

Well of course they havent. They arent some God who can definatively know the future. They dont claim some utopian society once government is taken down. In fact, the only people whom do, from my experience, and anarcho-communists/socialists.

So, go ahead. Cry because we wont tell you the answer to some improbable situation. Its only making you look bad now.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Improbable situation? You're telling me it's improbable that a nuclear weapon could enter into the global market? Perchance, have you heard about missing Soviet technology? Jihad groups in pursuit of such technology don't exist in your world, I imagine.

Good God, you guys need to lay off the drink. All I'm asking for is some substance, which you apparently can't deliver. Perhaps it's time to consult with Von Mises. :rolleyes:

[duckyfeets1]

Improbable situation? You're telling me it's improbable that a nuclear weapon could enter into the global market? Perchance, have you heard about missing Soviet technology? Jihad groups in pursuit of such technology don't exist in your world, I imagine.

Good God, you guys need to lay off the drink. All I'm asking for is some substance, which you apparently can't deliver. Perhaps it's time to consult with Von Mises. :rolleyes:


Youre missing one thing. Those missing weapons? Those Jihaad groups? FUNDED BY THE STATE.

Remember, it takes about 1 BILLION dollars a year to maintain a nuclear missile. It is HIGHLY improbable that someone would want to spend their own money to keep something that he will likely never use. The only way that people have been able to keep nuclear weapons historically, is through the STATE.

But, yet, youre still sitting there and whining! And attacking people left and right with rediculous insults. Yes, thats supporting your argument TONS.

[Baconator]

I made this thread with the expectation that anarcho-capitalists would try to weasel around the topic in an attempt to fit their utopian visage. I was right. So far I've established:

- I'm a statist because I don't want loud music waking me up at 3 o-clock in the morning.
- Some believe mixing labor with the earth constitutes property acquisition, and by defeault (for no definable reason) air and mineral rights come with it. I'm a statist for questioning why.
- I'm a statist for saying individuals don't have the right to own nuclear weapons. :)




Then why didn't you address to Dejavu/Baconator since I'm the only Market Anarchist here ( now duckyfeets too)? Most of the other OIers are minarchists or bigger statists but at least they don't pretend like they are anarchists.
You throw all this terminology out there without any intellectual backing. Its as if you believe its true just because you say so. AnCaps have a utopian vision. Explain why? If you believe in post scarcity and anarcho- technocracy then how do you not get around the 'pot calling the kettle black' when accusing others of utopianism?

- What does loud music in the morning have to do with the topic or being a statist? Straw man. Its when you find that a monopolistic and coercive state police force is necessary for the purpose of not listening to loud music that one could think you're a statist. Or when you use that as a ridiculous excuse to negate an individual's property right over his house.

- You clearly do not understand that an individual's labor is his own human energy given to him by the life that he , and only he, owns. The product of that energy is his. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that he does not own the product of his labor which means he does not own the energy required to create that product , which means he does not own his own life to give him that energy which means that he does not own himself which means he has no conscience or his conscience is separate from the mass of which is body is composed of , which means its a scientific impossibility.
The irrational belief that an individual does not own himself , his own energy, and the product of that energy suggests that something else must or else things like murder , slavery , and theft would have no meaning whatsoever.

- You are statist because you seem to have the mythological belief that the state itself is not comprised of individuals claiming the right to own nuclear weapons while denying other individuals that same right. There is nothing 'more human' about the individuals that manage the state and thus they are entitled to no more or less rights than any other individual on earth. If individuals in this thing called the 'U.S. government' can own nukes but I can't , or some individuals in N.Korea can't , then how is that logically consistent? You may choose to believe otherwise but you must submit you hold an irrational belief.

[pusher robot]

The implifications of your response was that you do not believe in a defined right to property, which undermines the core argument to all of capitalism.



This is a worthy topic for argument. What is rude is the way you don't permit that argument to take place, but jump straight to your own conclusions, then invalidly assume that I must agree with your conclusions because the argument never took place.

So I will formally dispute this.
Your "implification" is invalid. I happen to think that property rights - within certain bounds - are morally sound. Why you think that simply bounding a right "implifies" that the right is not "defined," I have no idea. I could make a similar argument: (a) being killed violates your right to life (b) if you threaten somebody's life, they can legitimate kill you (c) therefore you have no defined right to life. Do you agree with this argument? Do you think it makes sense?

EDIT: Notice how I didn't say: "You agree with this argument. You think it makes sense." That would have been rude.

[Baconator]

air and mineral rights come with it. I'm a statist for questioning why.

Sorry, just read this again and had to comment on how ridiculous this 'question' is. GC, for Pete's sake, what is the point of making such a silly assertion?
I figured your lack of understanding about economics( you still hold the LTV to be valid) would contribute to some shortcomings , but this , this is just ridiculous.
Air in a normal situation is not a good. Air is super-abundant except for in space or diving where air becomes scarce and therefore, a good. When we inhale air, we must claim exclusivity over however many particles of air we inhale since it can only be used by us. However, given that air is super-abundant , the air your body appropriated from the atmosphere quickly replenishes itself.
Minerals. Well, look in the mirror. If you are alive today then you have appropriated food and water from the environment and added the nutrients from such to your own mass. Quite evidently you have appropriated nutrients from nature and added to your own mass which means that those particular nutrients that help constitute your mass are exclusively yours.

Anymore silly arguments you have? Can you show me anywhere where this reasoning isn't logical? :rolleyes:

[Dr Mindbender]

Rights are for humans, not governments.
why does the american government have the right to own nuclear bombs then?

Lets have a little consistency please.

[Bud Struggle]

why does the american government have the right to own nuclear bombs then?

They invented them. :)

[Dr Mindbender]

They invented them. :)
No they didnt, the scientists did.

All the american goverment did was purchase the intellectual property which brings us back full circle to Gene Costa's original point.

[IcarusAngel]

"Baconator" chastising others for being pseudo-anarchists. Absolutely hilarious. :laugh:

[pusher robot]

why does the american government have the right to own nuclear bombs then?

Lets have a little consistency please.

They don't have the right to own them, they have the power to own them. Important difference. How can you tell it's one and not the other? Ask yourself - is there some law you could pass, some treaty, some edict, some writ of suspension of rights, that could deprive the United States of its nuclear weapons if they didn't feel like giving them up?

No? That's because it's by sheer, naked power that they wield them. They've got the bombs, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. "Rights" simply don't enter into it. At all.

[Comrade Rage]

...and you defend that?

[pusher robot]

...and you defend that?

Not exactly. I recognize that is reality and all the hopes and wishes and moral posturing will not change that.

[Baconator]

Edit

Jazzrat. Fix the tags. Thanx. :D

[Comrade Rage]

Not exactly. I recognize that is reality and all the hopes and wishes and moral posturing will not change that.Revolution sure will. You touch on a good point though, one that reformists ought to take note of: the ruling class sees things in the scope of power. They will use their power even when it is self-destructive. The efforts of reformers will also fall flat, because as long as the bourgeosie has it's power it's going to use it. The ONLY reason that we have even the limited rights that we do now is that it is convenient to the bourgeosie for us to have them right now.There is no reasoning with the ruling class, the only way we can stop their oppression, and imperialism is to kick them the fuck out and lock them up.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

"Baconator" chastising others for being pseudo-anarchists. Absolutely hilarious. :laugh:

I am still waiting to see how Lockian theory makes any sense, especially when you remove all of Locke's reference to a government agency preventing "disgraceful accumulation" of property - as well as how the backbone of capitalism - the corporation - can exist without a State. More importantly, how is a private entity enjoying public rights? Shouldn't that be reserved for public firms, like cooperatives?

Ah well. At least I get mah' nuke!

[pusher robot]

I am still waiting to see how Lockian theory makes any sense, especially when you remove all of Locke's reference to a government agency preventing "disgraceful accumulation" of property - as well as how the backbone of capitalism - the corporation - can exist without a State. More importantly, how is a private entity enjoying public rights? Shouldn't that be reserved for public firms, like cooperatives?

Ah well. At least I get mah' nuke!


How about addressing my rebuttal while you are waiting?

[Baconator]

I am still waiting to see how Lockian theory makes any sense, especially when you remove all of Locke's reference to a government agency preventing "disgraceful accumulation" of property

Proudhon, when he spoke of property being robbery ( theft) , implied that state property was theft. In contrast , Proudhon believed justly aquired property was legitimate. By justly acquired he meant the products of your labor. Read Proudhon sometime, you might get something out of it. Locke wasn't an anarchist and saw some irrational need for government. It doesn't mean I should dismiss all of Locke's contributions to libertarian thought though. Btw, I have created a chain of logical reasoning to support the argument that the product of your labor = your property based on self-ownership. Its a few posts back. If you really want to challenge that position then please show where in my chain of reasoning I show a contradiction and/or error and lets debate it like gentlemen. :D


- as well as how the backbone of capitalism - the corporation - can exist without a State.

Straw man. I'm not gonna defend corporatism. I never implied corporations would exist without a state. Thats not the Market Anarchist position at all btw.


More importantly, how is a private entity enjoying public rights?

Are you talking about corporations? If you are then I agree with you. I don't think there should be such a thing as 'public rights' and certainly no special 'rights' given to corporations. The state incorporates the corporations and gives it special 'rights.' I am opposed to this.



Shouldn't that be reserved for public firms, like cooperatives?

No, they shouldn't be a factor at all. There can be firms run by various individuals in cooperation but not a 'public' firm with special 'public rights' that exceed those of any individual. Why do you try to make it appear that I support mercantilism? Are you that slow or do you try to distort my arguments intentionally by creating straw men? Again, we can go on skype ( if you can get a mic ) and I can explain to you , word for word , what I believe in instead of you just making things up as you go.


Ah well. At least I get mah' nuke!

Cool. Me too.