If someone knows that their neighbor plans to use nukes against us they should do something about it. If our statement of policy makes them uneasy about sitting idly by as people plan massive aggression, then so be it. We didn't specifically threaten them. I cede that it is a threat, but it is a threat of retaliation, not a threat of aggression. Also, it's a bluff, remember. We'd use our anti-missile shit on their nukes and fuck em up with ARs man. It's really not a stretch. It would be uncalled for by the statement to nuke anyone but those who nuked us. This version of a threat is compatible with the non-aggression principle. It's a threat of equal retaliation to aggression. Only would be aggressors should feel threatened, but those who know they are near them would feel threatened in this case, because we're talking about retaliating with a nuke. They might be compelled to do something about it, I don't think it's all that bad, because we never actually threatened innocents, and we don't plan on actually making good on our threat. What are you going to do? Coerce their power away from them? Violate their property rights? Are you satisfied with letting people be free?
I thought you already accepted that your premise was false. You can use them in space without harming anyone. [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YmMNpbFjp0[/ame] You are arguing for the prohibition of nukes if you are arguing for the right to take peoples' nukes away.
How can you make a threat of retaliation against people who are not threatening or attacking you ? ( innocent bystanders) If a man threatens to kill me, am i justified in threatening to kill him and a few people around him? You don't get to say its not a threat, because you don't intend on following through. If a man threatens you with a pistol in your face, but never intends on shooting you, did he violate the idea of non aggression? On earth ( lets try to keep in there, because this is whats actually relevant at this point) if you use a nuke, there is no way to use it without killing innocents. The existence of the weapon in your possession at all is an actively implied threat. If you say " we are only going to use this against people if they nuke us, even if it means killing innocents" then you have made a threat to retaliate against your aggressors AND you have made an aggressive threat against the innocents. In that second part in bold, you are basically trying to justify Coercion under some half baked idea that it was not a direct threat to those people. However it IS a direct threat against those people. Its not like you can get play semantics games and claim your innocent of aggression just because you didn't call out their names. Everybody involved knows who the threat pertains to, whether you cited the innocents who would die or not. I am all for property rights, but not when it means aggression against people by default. For the record i don't think anybody has argued for or against prohibition of nukes, so far you have not grasped the concept that ownership of these weapons cannot be justified as being non aggressive. Once we get that far maybe we can have that discussion, in another thread.
You would need a way to deploy your nuclear payload into space, which is something that very few individuals can afford. If they have no way of deploying their nuclear weapon into space, then your counterexample falls flat and thus I should be able to take away their nuclear weapon as they have no way of using it without harming innocent bystanders. Note that I am not arguing for the prohibition of nuclear weapons for, as you said, they can be used in space without harming anyone.
You're prohibiting the ownership of nuclear weapons when the ownership doesn't meet your standard. This is all irrelevant anyway, you guys got really sucked into all the mumbo jumbo in that article. It's a massive red herring, it doesn't matter if I can or cannot use it without harming innocents; owning it doesn't amount to setting it off. Owning a nuke doesn't harm anyone, and you can't just assume people intend to use them. You can go around arbitrarily deciding who can keep their nukes, based on safety standards, in your society, that's fine, but you should make it clear that this prohibition is an exception to your usual rule: people should be able to do as they will as long as they don't harm anyone. Owning a nuke isn't an act of aggression, it harms no one. This is a ridiculous rationalization: "They have no way of using it without harming innocent bystanders." That's bologna man. They can use it as a chair, or a hat. The point is, they don't have to set it off to use it for their purposes.
The article argues against owning armed nuclear weapons, not disarmed ones. You saying that an armed nuclear weapon can be used as a chair or hat? I'm still not convinced that you've read the article as you haven't addressed any of the points in there.
[quote name='"Messiah Decoy"'] I'm not saying it will be like North Korea but do you think anyone from a seceded state that said "fuck off, we don't need America" would be able to move here and gain citizenship that easily? The US government will be like "Nice try, but get in line behind the Mexicans".[/quote] I think it would be the opposite of what you think. If a state were to succeed it would be flooded with free thinking people and if regulations were better business would flock there as well. It would be a model that other states would soon follow ..the federal state living people would be the ones stuck
[quote name='"Messiah Decoy"'] If the majority of American people agreed to surrender a territory then I'd accept it.[/quote] You are fooled by democracy. We are a republic and that is the reason for succeeding.
I didn't. The statement, "If you nuke us, we'll nuke you." clearly describes a situation where if we are nuked we will nuke the aggressors. It doesn't say we'll nuke the aggressors and some innocents too, you're just reading into it. There really is no threat made towards innocents, I'm not saying they won't perceive it as a threat, but if they perceived it as a threat then they knew of would be nukers in their vicinity. I'm not against these people being scared into action against the would be aggressors because of a perceived threat. They weren't actually threatened. No If there are people that have threatened to nuke you, are you justified in threatening to nuke them in retaliation in the case that they nuke you? What if you make it explicit that no innocents will be harmed? If you noticed, I ceded that it is a form of a threat. But it's threat of retaliation, not aggression. A threat of retaliation isn't even much of a threat, it's more of a statement of policy. If you harm me, I'll harm you! So threatening. If a man does that, yes he is violating the principle; however, if a man states that he would meet force with force in the case that force is used against him, he is not violating the principle. His threat is only a threat to would be aggressors, who he is justified in defending himself against. You have little idea what will happen tomorrow so this point is weak, perhaps using nukes in space will become very relevant, or already is to some individuals. You disregard unknowns here, no one knows when the aliens or meteors will show up, man. That's just not true. You can use them in space! Also, if we're speaking only of fatality, then there are places you can set nukes off on earth without causing any. Lol, so if Iran gets a nuke we should forcefully disarm them, since they're threatening us? Bull fucking shit, owning a nuke harms no one and isn't a threat. You may perceive it as a threat, but it's not actually a threat. It's just threatening, scary. True that, but that's not what I did. If I had to make the statement again, I would say, "If you nuke us, we'll nuke you, and no innocents will be harmed." But the statement doesn't call for the nuking of anyone but the aggressors. The statement is strategic, it allows people to assume and perceive a threat where there hasn't been one made, and it works in our favor. Because owning a nuke is aggression If you can tell me how the simple ownership of a nuke is an act of aggression then I will bow to you, shit would be mystical. But you have argued for the prohibition of nukes, you are arguing for the right to deny people ownership of nukes. Give the job of enforcing that right to the state and you've got yourself a regular prohibition. Leave it to the people and you've got prohibition enforced by vigilantes.
Are you saying they can't be used as such? I have read the entire article. Between you and southernsmoke I have now argued against most of the major points of the article more than once. "Yo, space ain't relevant." "Eat my false premise up." "In a super crowded world, even guns should be illegal." The article is lulzy: Libertarian gun control
I really don't care enough to spend time explaining again, but since your being ridiculous rather than outright rude like some, ill try again. Threats of retaliation are okay. BUT since you can't retaliate with a nuke ( on planet earth, i can't even believe i have to denote this) without harming innocents, then keeping to the position that you will use it AT ALL necesarily threatens the people within range of the agressor. Your threat can only be be as precise as what your threatening to do. Furthermore, if you are going to justify owning a nuke on the ridiculous grounds that your only going to use it in space, then you would have to be able to provide proof that you could even get it into space. so now your talking about spending resources on a nuclear device, AND a means to get it into space. All without having the intention of using it other wise. WTF kind of sense do you think you are making right now? What your saying is equivalent to walking into a bar with a grenade, and threatening to use it against someone who seeks to agress against you. If you use a grenade in a bar, you cannot determine who will be hurt, and who won't. therefore you can't justify that your threat to use the weapon at all doesn't threaten the people around. Are you in the habbit of factoring in unkowns into all of your rational process? Because unkowns are infinite. Then only way to make useful and meaningful predictions is by diregaurding what you can't see until you can see it. Anyway, you can't make the argument that you only intend to use it in space unless you have a means of delivery. lol, this is idiotic. No matter if you SAY they will be harmed or not, if your method is not precise enough to make your statement true, your simply lying in order to justify your threat. if you are in a car with a bomb planted under it, and 4 people are in that car, and one threatens to assault you, your threat of retaliation against that person, through a means that is likely to kill or injure everyone else, you have just made an implied threat to the rest of the people in the car that unless they stop him from agressing against you, they will be killed too. This is call coercion.
Only as a state would you completely destroy something before you steal it and rebuild it. Individuals or small societies don't think this way. It's the state and patriotism that enables this
You're assuming way too much man. I can relocate the aggressors after capturing them, and then nuke them. You just want to hold onto this rationalization, "It's impossible to use nukes without harming people, so we need to take them away from people." You're just flat out wrong. Quit trying to push this false statement. Since when did I have to justify owning any sort of property in a libertarian society? You also haven't explained how simply owning a nuke equates to aggression. You keep coming at me with drab ass examples of people threatening each other, and they aren't even analogous to what we're trying to examine