SOCAL's Razor

[carlfense]

***snip***

And though carlfense attempts to sarcastically portrays a free society as one lacking violence and blatantly misconstrues my viewpoint that violence is solely a product of government (though all governments do exist on theft and violence), what he implies could not be further from the truth. Anarchism acknowledges that individuals do act irrational and it is for precisely that reason that no individual, or group of individuals, should ever be given control of an organization that claims to have monopoly power on violence or justice. Does he truly believe that a piece of paper and the good will of all the people, including all the irrational ones, is really going to stop an truly irrational person from gaining power and using it as he sees fit? No law is ever going to stop an irrational person from acting, but in many cases it sure will prevent rational individuals from acting in their own best interest.

***snip***

hmmmm.

Was I wrong?

In a word, yes.

[Husker_x]

Socal,

 

This is something I forgot to ask and has literally nothing to do with the conversation. Its sole purpose is my own curiosity.

 

Do you believe in an anarchy that people should be allowed to buy, sell, manufacture or own thermonuclear weapons privately?

 

You can answer yes or no. At this point I don't even intend to respond but I am interested to hear the answer.

 

Let me guess at an answer:

 

Absolutely it should be legal if you mean the question in the sense of should a coercive and violent monopoly prohibit by force something that is the individual's natural right.

 

However, in an anarcho-capitalist society there is natural law. This should not be confused with an absence of law. Natural law essentially means that you can't initiate violence against anyone else and what you own as an individual is yours absolutely.

 

Therefore, because the only purpose for a nuclear weapon is the initiation of violence, no one in an anarcho-capitalist society would ever WANT to create a nuclear weapon. Everyone would be too busy prospering and increasing their market share to worry about a silly nuke. Why would anyone need or want a nuke if the very existence of natural law EXPRESSY PROHIBITS the initiation of violence or the destruction of another's property? Of course if someone did try to make a nuke, you, as a prosperous young Rand-ian, could hire the local law enforcement franchise to prevent the use of said weapon against someone else. Now of course, the private law enforcement franchise can't actually act against the nuke manufacturer because natural law prevents the interference with another individual. Still with me? (Not to mention the fact that violence is solely a product of government. Who else would even want a nuclear weapon? What could they possibly gain with it?)

 

:moreinteresting

@ HuskerX,

 

As long as a person does not initiate theft or violence against another individual or their property they can do, sell, purchase, or manufacture whatever it is they desire. However, besides the obvious cost, knowledge and resources involved in the research and manufacture of nuclear weapons what good or advantage could any individual possibly gain from owning one since he has no right or means of stopping other individuals from creating, purchasing or manufacturing the same thing? Do you expect me, or any one else, to believe that only one person in the entire world can own, sell, or maufacture nuclear weapons?

 

And though carlfense attempts to sarcastically portrays a free society as one lacking violence and blatantly misconstrues my viewpoint that violence is solely a product of government (though all governments do exist on theft and violence), what he implies could not be further from the truth. Anarchism acknowledges that individuals do act irrational and it is for precisely that reason that no individual, or group of individuals, should ever be given control of an organization that claims to have monopoly power on violence or justice. Does he truly believe that a piece of paper and the good will of all the people, including all the irrational ones, is really going to stop an truly irrational person from gaining power and using it as he sees fit? No law is ever going to stop an irrational person from acting, but in many cases it sure will prevent rational individuals from acting in their own best interest.

 

And who said that the sole purpose of a nuclear weapon is the initiation of violence? Could it not be used for defensive or retalitory purposes?

 

Also, how can someone own something, yet not own it absolutely?

 

Lastly, is initiating violence against others the only way to solve a dispute?

 

I can't speak for carlfense.

 

But all that needs to be said really is the following. It only takes one person or a small group of people manufacturing nuclear weapons (particularly a hydrogen bomb) to destroy the planet, or enough of it where enormous landmasses become uninhabitable for a generation or more.

 

It becomes a matter of risk assessment.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Socal,

 

This is something I forgot to ask and has literally nothing to do with the conversation. Its sole purpose is my own curiosity.

 

Do you believe in an anarchy that people should be allowed to buy, sell, manufacture or own thermonuclear weapons privately?

 

You can answer yes or no. At this point I don't even intend to respond but I am interested to hear the answer.

 

Let me guess at an answer:

 

Absolutely it should be legal if you mean the question in the sense of should a coercive and violent monopoly prohibit by force something that is the individual's natural right.

 

However, in an anarcho-capitalist society there is natural law. This should not be confused with an absence of law. Natural law essentially means that you can't initiate violence against anyone else and what you own as an individual is yours absolutely.

 

Therefore, because the only purpose for a nuclear weapon is the initiation of violence, no one in an anarcho-capitalist society would ever WANT to create a nuclear weapon. Everyone would be too busy prospering and increasing their market share to worry about a silly nuke. Why would anyone need or want a nuke if the very existence of natural law EXPRESSY PROHIBITS the initiation of violence or the destruction of another's property? Of course if someone did try to make a nuke, you, as a prosperous young Rand-ian, could hire the local law enforcement franchise to prevent the use of said weapon against someone else. Now of course, the private law enforcement franchise can't actually act against the nuke manufacturer because natural law prevents the interference with another individual. Still with me? (Not to mention the fact that violence is solely a product of government. Who else would even want a nuclear weapon? What could they possibly gain with it?)

 

:moreinteresting

@ HuskerX,

 

As long as a person does not initiate theft or violence against another individual or their property they can do, sell, purchase, or manufacture whatever it is they desire. However, besides the obvious cost, knowledge and resources involved in the research and manufacture of nuclear weapons what good or advantage could any individual possibly gain from owning one since he has no right or means of stopping other individuals from creating, purchasing or manufacturing the same thing? Do you expect me, or any one else, to believe that only one person in the entire world can own, sell, or maufacture nuclear weapons?

 

And though carlfense attempts to sarcastically portrays a free society as one lacking violence and blatantly misconstrues my viewpoint that violence is solely a product of government (though all governments do exist on theft and violence), what he implies could not be further from the truth. Anarchism acknowledges that individuals do act irrational and it is for precisely that reason that no individual, or group of individuals, should ever be given control of an organization that claims to have monopoly power on violence or justice. Does he truly believe that a piece of paper and the good will of all the people, including all the irrational ones, is really going to stop an truly irrational person from gaining power and using it as he sees fit? No law is ever going to stop an irrational person from acting, but in many cases it sure will prevent rational individuals from acting in their own best interest.

 

And who said that the sole purpose of a nuclear weapon is the initiation of violence? Could it not be used for defensive or retalitory purposes?

 

Also, how can someone own something, yet not own it absolutely?

 

Lastly, is initiating violence against others the only way to solve a dispute?

 

I can't speak for carlfense.

 

But all that needs to be said really is the following. It only takes one person or a small group of people manufacturing nuclear weapons (particularly a hydrogen bomb) to destroy the planet, or enough of it where enormous landmasses become uninhabitable for a generation or more.

 

It becomes a matter of risk assessment.

That's entirely possible, but what's to prevent that from happening even with a government? And if government is the answer, shouldn't the responsibility then lie with a one world government, instead of hundreds of countries operating in what is essentially anarchy? I mean if one country can obtain a nuke and blow the entire planet to smithereens, someone must be in control to prevent that, right? How come nobody is advocating for a sole global monopoly on theft and violence to prevent other countries from blowing up the planet? Also, is the completely subjective risk, subjective because no one truly knows what it is, somehow justification for enslavement of all humanity?

[Husker_x]

Socal,

 

This is something I forgot to ask and has literally nothing to do with the conversation. Its sole purpose is my own curiosity.

 

Do you believe in an anarchy that people should be allowed to buy, sell, manufacture or own thermonuclear weapons privately?

 

You can answer yes or no. At this point I don't even intend to respond but I am interested to hear the answer.

 

Let me guess at an answer:

 

Absolutely it should be legal if you mean the question in the sense of should a coercive and violent monopoly prohibit by force something that is the individual's natural right.

 

However, in an anarcho-capitalist society there is natural law. This should not be confused with an absence of law. Natural law essentially means that you can't initiate violence against anyone else and what you own as an individual is yours absolutely.

 

Therefore, because the only purpose for a nuclear weapon is the initiation of violence, no one in an anarcho-capitalist society would ever WANT to create a nuclear weapon. Everyone would be too busy prospering and increasing their market share to worry about a silly nuke. Why would anyone need or want a nuke if the very existence of natural law EXPRESSY PROHIBITS the initiation of violence or the destruction of another's property? Of course if someone did try to make a nuke, you, as a prosperous young Rand-ian, could hire the local law enforcement franchise to prevent the use of said weapon against someone else. Now of course, the private law enforcement franchise can't actually act against the nuke manufacturer because natural law prevents the interference with another individual. Still with me? (Not to mention the fact that violence is solely a product of government. Who else would even want a nuclear weapon? What could they possibly gain with it?)

 

:moreinteresting

@ HuskerX,

 

As long as a person does not initiate theft or violence against another individual or their property they can do, sell, purchase, or manufacture whatever it is they desire. However, besides the obvious cost, knowledge and resources involved in the research and manufacture of nuclear weapons what good or advantage could any individual possibly gain from owning one since he has no right or means of stopping other individuals from creating, purchasing or manufacturing the same thing? Do you expect me, or any one else, to believe that only one person in the entire world can own, sell, or maufacture nuclear weapons?

 

And though carlfense attempts to sarcastically portrays a free society as one lacking violence and blatantly misconstrues my viewpoint that violence is solely a product of government (though all governments do exist on theft and violence), what he implies could not be further from the truth. Anarchism acknowledges that individuals do act irrational and it is for precisely that reason that no individual, or group of individuals, should ever be given control of an organization that claims to have monopoly power on violence or justice. Does he truly believe that a piece of paper and the good will of all the people, including all the irrational ones, is really going to stop an truly irrational person from gaining power and using it as he sees fit? No law is ever going to stop an irrational person from acting, but in many cases it sure will prevent rational individuals from acting in their own best interest.

 

And who said that the sole purpose of a nuclear weapon is the initiation of violence? Could it not be used for defensive or retalitory purposes?

 

Also, how can someone own something, yet not own it absolutely?

 

Lastly, is initiating violence against others the only way to solve a dispute?

 

I can't speak for carlfense.

 

But all that needs to be said really is the following. It only takes one person or a small group of people manufacturing nuclear weapons (particularly a hydrogen bomb) to destroy the planet, or enough of it where enormous landmasses become uninhabitable for a generation or more.

 

It becomes a matter of risk assessment.

That's entirely possible, but what's to prevent that from happening even with a government? And if government is the answer, shouldn't the responsibility then lie with a one world government, instead of hundreds of countries operating in what is essentially anarchy? I mean if one country can obtain a nuke and blow the entire planet to smithereens, someone must be in control to prevent that, right? How come nobody is advocating for a sole global monopoly on theft and violence to prevent other countries from blowing up the planet? Also, is the completely subjective risk, subjective because no one truly knows what it is, somehow justification for enslavement of all humanity?

 

There are 196 countries in the world. The United States recognizes 192 of them. We'll call it an even two hundred taking into account possible political upheavals in the next century or so.

 

There are nearly seven billion people on the planet.

 

That's seven billion potential nuke factories compared to two hundred. No United Nations council to arrange sanctions or forcible action. No preemptive strikes would be allowed by your society. And that's the bitch of it, because if self-annihilation isn't a problem for a fanatic, guess what your options are when he nears or achieves the power to end all life?

 

Coercive monopoly and force.

[walksalone]

United Nations is almost as worthless as NATO (Not Able To Organize)...

 

U.N. "Peacekeepers" (aka Blue Helmeted Dingus's), were deployed to Sierra Leone in the 90's to restabilize the country after years of revolution and unrest. They were alloted half a billion dollars a year, and managed to get 500 of their own troops captured by rebels operating in the poorest country on the planet.

 

A merc company named Executive Outcomes drove the rebels out, and to the peace talk table in 18 months at the price of a little over a million a month, which they ended up not even getting paid the full amount.

 

They need to relocate the U.N. to europe somewhere, and the U.S. needs to get the hell out from under it.

[Husker_x]

United Nations is almost as worthless as NATO (Not Able To Organize)...

 

U.N. "Peacekeepers" (aka Blue Helmeted Dingus's), were deployed to Sierra Leone in the 90's to restabilize the country after years of revolution and unrest. They were alloted half a billion dollars a year, and managed to get 500 of their own troops captured by rebels operating in the poorest country on the planet.

 

A merc company named Executive Outcomes drove the rebels out, and to the peace talk table in 18 months at the price of a little over a million a month, which they ended up not even getting paid the full amount.

 

They need to relocate the U.N. to europe somewhere, and the U.S. needs to get the hell out from under it.

 

Failure or not, the idea of nations coordinating to prevent the apocalypse seems to have at least a vastly superior chance of succeeding than a hope and a prayer when anyone with a little means and an internet connection is suddenly capable of producing their very own doomsday device.

[walksalone]

United Nations is almost as worthless as NATO (Not Able To Organize)...

 

U.N. "Peacekeepers" (aka Blue Helmeted Dingus's), were deployed to Sierra Leone in the 90's to restabilize the country after years of revolution and unrest. They were alloted half a billion dollars a year, and managed to get 500 of their own troops captured by rebels operating in the poorest country on the planet.

 

A merc company named Executive Outcomes drove the rebels out, and to the peace talk table in 18 months at the price of a little over a million a month, which they ended up not even getting paid the full amount.

 

They need to relocate the U.N. to europe somewhere, and the U.S. needs to get the hell out from under it.

 

Failure or not, the idea of nations coordinating to prevent the apocalypse seems to have at least a vastly superior chance of succeeding than a hope and a prayer when anyone with a little means and an internet connection is suddenly capable of producing their very own doomsday device.

 

Yeah, but ever notice, if there's an apocalypse to prevent anywhere but here, we always show up? I know there's terrible things going on elsewhere in the world, but the U.N. can get up, off of their shoulders, and f'n do something, instead of parking illegally in NYC.

 

But if something happens here, where's the U.N. then?

 

Simply put, anytime a 3rd world dictator gets out of control, we hear this from the U.N.

 

"Cease (insert violation here) acts or we'll impose sanctions"

 

What they really mean....

 

"Stop or we'll send the U.S. to scare you"

[jnkyrdoff6]

 

There are 196 countries in the world. The United States recognizes 192 of them. We'll call it an even two hundred taking into account possible political upheavals in the next century or so.

 

There are nearly seven billion people on the planet.

 

That's seven billion potential nuke factories compared to two hundred. No United Nations council to arrange sanctions or forcible action. No preemptive strikes would be allowed by your society. And that's the bitch of it, because if self-annihilation isn't a problem for a fanatic, guess what your options are when he nears or achieves the power to end all life?

 

Coercive monopoly and force.

From an anarchist's standpoint, I don't think that's too much of a problem. Preemptive strikes wouldn't be allowed, but if you look back on a ton of today's problems, you can trace them back to the US meddling in something it had no business being in. I'll probably face a lot of criticism for this, but I really think, in a way we created 9/11. I'm not saying that because I think it was a hoax perpetrated by our government or anything. I'm just saying we trained the terrorist forces to help fight of the USSR, we gave them weapons, and we refused to remove our troops from Saudi Arabian borders. If we wouldn't have done anything when we felt threatened by the USSR's increasing size, I don't think 9/11 would've ever happened. In other words, our preemptive attitude created the problem. The Soviet Union would've collapsed by itself. Of course, hindsight is 20/20, but I think that's the way SOCAL sees it too. I could be wrong though.

[carlfense]

From an anarchist's standpoint, I don't think that's too much of a problem. Preemptive strikes wouldn't be allowed, but if you look back on a ton of today's problems, you can trace them back to the US meddling in something it had no business being in. I'll probably face a lot of criticism for this, but I really think, in a way we created 9/11. I'm not saying that because I think it was a hoax perpetrated by our government or anything. I'm just saying we trained the terrorist forces to help fight of the USSR, we gave them weapons, and we refused to remove our troops from Saudi Arabian borders. If we wouldn't have done anything when we felt threatened by the USSR's increasing size, I don't think 9/11 would've ever happened. In other words, our preemptive attitude created the problem. The Soviet Union would've collapsed by itself. Of course, hindsight is 20/20, but I think that's the way SOCAL sees it too. I could be wrong though.

The problem is that if you can't do a pre-emptive strike against someone who is going to use a nuke it will be too late to do anything after the fact.

[SOCALHUSKER]

United Nations is almost as worthless as NATO (Not Able To Organize)...

 

U.N. "Peacekeepers" (aka Blue Helmeted Dingus's), were deployed to Sierra Leone in the 90's to restabilize the country after years of revolution and unrest. They were alloted half a billion dollars a year, and managed to get 500 of their own troops captured by rebels operating in the poorest country on the planet.

 

A merc company named Executive Outcomes drove the rebels out, and to the peace talk table in 18 months at the price of a little over a million a month, which they ended up not even getting paid the full amount.

 

They need to relocate the U.N. to europe somewhere, and the U.S. needs to get the hell out from under it.

 

Failure or not, the idea of nations coordinating to prevent the apocalypse seems to have at least a vastly superior chance of succeeding than a hope and a prayer when anyone with a little means and an internet connection is suddenly capable of producing their very own doomsday device.

 

Which is exactly my point. If nations, all of which operate in anarchy in relation to each other and are all made up entirely of individuals, are able to voluntarily coordinate to prevent a doomsday device scenario from happening, why not each state, each county, each city, each neighborhood and each individual? Why do you falsely assume that crisis cannot be diverted without the enaction of a coercive monopoly?

[SOCALHUSKER]

From an anarchist's standpoint, I don't think that's too much of a problem. Preemptive strikes wouldn't be allowed, but if you look back on a ton of today's problems, you can trace them back to the US meddling in something it had no business being in. I'll probably face a lot of criticism for this, but I really think, in a way we created 9/11. I'm not saying that because I think it was a hoax perpetrated by our government or anything. I'm just saying we trained the terrorist forces to help fight of the USSR, we gave them weapons, and we refused to remove our troops from Saudi Arabian borders. If we wouldn't have done anything when we felt threatened by the USSR's increasing size, I don't think 9/11 would've ever happened. In other words, our preemptive attitude created the problem. The Soviet Union would've collapsed by itself. Of course, hindsight is 20/20, but I think that's the way SOCAL sees it too. I could be wrong though.

The problem is that if you can't do a pre-emptive strike against someone who is going to use a nuke it will be too late to do anything after the fact.

So, we'll leave that subjective choice of preemptive strike up to a few individuals, elected by a majority of voters in their territorial monopoly, and supposedly bound to a piece of paper? Sounds nuke-proof!!

 

Once again, is your subjective opinion of whether or not someone is going to use a nuke somehow justification for murdering and stealing from innocent people? Is initiating the killing of other individuals not murder? Does murder by government make murder any less wrong? Not only do preemptive strikes cause much damage and loss of life through collateral damage, but you refuse to look at the theft, destruction and loss of life that occurs as a result of funding the strike. What difference does it make if the US, Iran, North Korea, The Soviet Union, you or I was in possession of a nuclear bomb, does government and/or preemptive strikes somehow prevent violence or the end of the world? Or as jnkyrdoff6 points out, does it merely perpetuate violence and directly cause many other worse consequences?

[carlfense]

From an anarchist's standpoint, I don't think that's too much of a problem. Preemptive strikes wouldn't be allowed, but if you look back on a ton of today's problems, you can trace them back to the US meddling in something it had no business being in. I'll probably face a lot of criticism for this, but I really think, in a way we created 9/11. I'm not saying that because I think it was a hoax perpetrated by our government or anything. I'm just saying we trained the terrorist forces to help fight of the USSR, we gave them weapons, and we refused to remove our troops from Saudi Arabian borders. If we wouldn't have done anything when we felt threatened by the USSR's increasing size, I don't think 9/11 would've ever happened. In other words, our preemptive attitude created the problem. The Soviet Union would've collapsed by itself. Of course, hindsight is 20/20, but I think that's the way SOCAL sees it too. I could be wrong though.

The problem is that if you can't do a pre-emptive strike against someone who is going to use a nuke it will be too late to do anything after the fact.

So, we'll leave that subjective choice of preemptive strike up to a few individuals, elected by a majority of voters in their territorial monopoly, and supposedly bound to a piece of paper? Sounds nuke-proof!!

 

Once again, is your subjective opinion of whether or not someone is going to use a nuke somehow justification for murdering and stealing from innocent people? Is initiating the killing of other individuals not murder? Does murder by government make murder any less wrong? Not only do preemptive strikes cause much damage and loss of life through collateral damage, but you refuse to look at the theft, destruction and loss of life that occurs as a result of funding the strike. What difference does it make if the US, Iran, North Korea, The Soviet Union, you or I was in possession of a nuclear bomb, does government and/or preemptive strikes somehow prevent violence or the end of the world? Or as jnkyrdoff6 points out, does it merely perpetuate violence and directly cause many other worse consequences?

Excellent point SOCAL! Let's wait until this madman uses his nuke before concluding that he will use his nuke. Think of the lives we will save. . .

[Husker_x]

Socal, you make me laugh sometimes.

 

You do realize that 7,000,000,000 > 200, right? That's 6,999,999,800 more chances of someone producing a nuclear weapon.

 

The reason nations are able to work it out amongst themselves is that individual citizens, as opposed to the military structure, cannot produce or possess this weaponry. Thus only a declaration of war or an illegal terrorist action allows for the ownership or use of this weapon. And when a rogue nation like Iran declares its intentions to build and use these weapons against other nations, you'll soon see enemy aircraft approaching in the distance to eliminate this possibility.

 

Since your ideal society doesn't allow for a preemptive strike (force) against an individual possessing this technology, by the time you realized someone had even used it the world will have ended. You're thirty years old. I assume you've heard of the Cold War. Welcome to the nuclear age my friend, where everyone stays up late and every option is a sh**ty one. Some just happen to be less sh**ty than others.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Socal, you make me laugh sometimes.

 

You do realize that 7,000,000,000 > 200, right? That's 6,999,999,800 more chances of someone producing a nuclear weapon.

 

The reason nations are able to work it out amongst themselves is that individual citizens, as opposed to the military structure, cannot produce or possess this weaponry. Thus only a declaration of war or an illegal terrorist action allows for the ownership or use of this weapon. And when a rogue nation like Iran declares its intentions to build and use these weapons against other nations, you'll soon see enemy aircraft approaching in the distance to eliminate this possibility.

 

Since your ideal society doesn't allow for a preemptive strike (force) against an individual possessing this technology, by the time you realized someone had even used it the world will have ended. You're thirty years old. I assume you've heard of the Cold War. Welcome to the nuclear age my friend, where everyone stays up late and every option is a sh**ty one. Some just happen to be less sh**ty than others.

As opposed to the number of coercive monopolies that currently have nuclear weapons now? So what? Also, how do you figure that all those people will have the knowledge, wealth and resources to create a nuke?

 

You and carlfense are the queens of scare tactics. Fortunately, fear isn't a blanket of approval to rule others nor is it justification to rob people blind and kill them if they refuse. You are quite correct that some options are sh*ttier than others, but you'll have a hard time convincing me that the one you suggest, a coercive monopoly, isn't the sh*ttiest one of all.

[SOCALHUSKER]

BTW, did knapplc fall off the map when I asked for his definitions?