Political Theory

Re: Anarchism: What happens to the bombs?

John James — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 20:26:08 GMT

When Is It Justified to Own Your Own Nuclear Weapon?

Nuclear Freedom = Nuclear Safety

There are no nukes in the libertarian utopia

Re: Anarchism: What happens to the bombs?

Live_Free_Or_Die — Thu, 10 May 2012 16:14:04 GMT

Autolykos:
No one seems to have paid attention to my speculation that the components of existing nuclear weapons - including the radioactive components - would be more highly valued for other uses (such as electric power generation).

state intervention has diverted uranium and plutonium to less productive uses? say what? you mean it might be more profitable to generate power with plutonium and uranium versus building an explosive money pit? are you suggesting without government intervention plutonium or uranium energy might have already evolved at the pace of other technologies such as computers or cell phones?

Regarding the lone wolf, chemically imbalanced, red button pressing madman....

I am perfectly ok taking my chances. Hell I take my chances everytime I take a breath, get out of bed, or walk out my front door. I am not going to let the remote possiblity of some a-hole nuking me cause me to live in fear of it. Statistically you have better odds of being in a car crash and I don't hear the fear mongers bitching about cars or suggesting we should live without cars.

Re: Anarchism: What happens to the bombs?

excel — Thu, 10 May 2012 14:08:22 GMT

Autolykos:

No one seems to have paid attention to my speculation that the components of existing nuclear weapons - including the radioactive components - would be more highly valued for other uses (such as electric power generation).

Shut up and lets bomb something. WOO!

Re: Anarchism: What happens to the bombs?

Autolykos — Thu, 10 May 2012 13:07:21 GMT

No one seems to have paid attention to my speculation that the components of existing nuclear weapons - including the radioactive components - would be more highly valued for other uses (such as electric power generation).

Re: Anarchism: What happens to the bombs?

John James — Thu, 10 May 2012 03:01:47 GMT

Rorschach:
if that means explaining why a billionaire would almost certainly not plunder an isolated town in Utah for his own glee, so be it. And anything which can give more robustness to an argument is a plus. You learn how to think outside of the box a little more when presented with abstract situations.

Maybe...but

a) If your goal is "winning people over" I think time is much more effectively spent with people who are actually thinking individuals seeking truth. (See the threads under "Argumentation & spreading the word" here). There are far too many ripe minds out there to be wasting time with people who have no interest in actually thinking or internalizing ideas that are new to them.

b) You may be challenged with "abstract situations" but that doesn't necessarily make them useful. And that doesn't mean that's what we're dealing with here. Again, what is the point in debating a scenario that is dependent upon a prequisite that would virtually never happen? Hypotheticals are useful in extrapolating principles, but there isn't any principle under debate here. The OP has no interest in discussing the deontological (or even economic) merits of any proposed philosophy. All he's been harping on for almost the entire thread is a "what if elephants could fly" scenario, and expecting some kind of "this is how we'll create nirvana" response.

That's part of why I think there's an advantage to answering these questions: you can defend them in the future even if they are silly, and there is less of an excuse for the person asking the question not to accept your position. But asserting any certainty that their situation is implausible will make you seem (to the inquisitor) doctrinaire and narrow-minded.

You even admitted yourself that you required specific details before you could even begin to venture an answer. All I did was ask for similar details as to how exactly all the resources necessary for such a scenario to exist would be redily available for even the average person, let alone almost everyone.

I don't see how there is any difference between what I require and what you require.

The fact that he can't offer an answer to my (and gotlucky, and kakugo, and possibly others) question, speaks to the implausibility. I don't have to bring it up. Again, you said it yourself...you need to know what assumptions he's making. That determines the nature of your answer. That's all I'm asking for. If that makes me "narrow-minded", then I don't see what I can hope to gain from engaging such a person.

You allege that I would garner some kind of skill, or develop some counter-argument that could use in the future against a similar or same nonsense proposition. My point is, if I am faced with nonsense, now or in the future, and the person perpetrating it has no interest in logic or reason, then I will find someone more active-minded to interact with...or I'll find something better to do. Again, if my goal is "winning people over", there are way too many ripe fruit out there to be wasting my time trying to rejuvenate a rotten apple.

I think if he wants a serious answer to this specific question, he'd be best off specializing in knowledge of nuclear bombs and maybe even terrorism on his own. Plenty of knowledge available if you're just willing to search for it. But before potentially wasting all of that time, think about how serious the question itself is in the first place.

Isn't that almost exactly what I said, only with different words?

Re: Anarchism: What happens to the bombs?

Rorschach — Thu, 10 May 2012 02:39:48 GMT

I don't disagree with your overall point, but I would argue with the bold part. I think there is an inherent problem with the question other than the obvious lack of any background or detail....and that is the sheer unplausible nature of the scenario. Again, it's like I said above, it's like positing "suppose elephants fly..." and then expecting a serious argument to follow.

Yes, I know, but libertarians are perpetually going to be asked to defend hypothetical scenarios both rational and irrational, and people will tend to reallocate their values toward what they subconsciously want them to be to the point that they overemphasize minor points. So providing counterpoints to strange, hypothetical scenarios can accomodate for that somewhat. You can only win people over by degrees, and if that means explaining why a billionaire would almost certainly not plunder an isolated town in Utah for his own glee, so be it. And anything which can give more robustness to an argument is a plus. You learn how to think outside of the box a little more when presented with abstract situations.

so much as "catching" anarchists in a position they allegedly cannot defend

That's part of why I think there's an advantage to answering these questions: you can defend them in the future even if they are silly, and there is less of an excuse for the person asking the question not to accept your position. But asserting any certainty that their situation is implausible will make you seem (to the inquisitor) doctrinaire and narrow-minded.

I think if he wants a serious answer to this specific question, he'd be best off specializing in knowledge of nuclear bombs and maybe even terrorism on his own. Plenty of knowledge available if you're just willing to search for it. But before potentially wasting all of that time, think about how serious the question itself is in the first place.

Re: Anarchism: What happens to the bombs?

John James — Thu, 10 May 2012 01:00:04 GMT

Rorschach:
That's because it's difficult to argue over a vague plot of a hypothetical thriller novel. There's nothing wrong with the questions you're asking, but it's really unclear at this point what you're asking and what assumptions you're making. How did anarchism emerge? How cheap are nuclear bombs at this point? How would the situation be clearly better with a state? Define the scenario with clarity and you might get some sort of Socratic dialogue going.

I don't disagree with your overall point, but I would argue with the bold part. I think there is an inherent problem with the question other than the obvious lack of any background or detail....and that is the sheer unplausible nature of the scenario. Again, it's like I said above, it's like positing "suppose elephants fly..." and then expecting a serious argument to follow.

Aside from the details you mentioned (such as, how exactly this anarchism emerged), I'd say the more important question than how cheap these weapons are, is how is it that the weapons themselves as well as all the ancillary resources necessary to house and maintain them are so cheap in the first place?

I doubt you'll get an answer to these questions, as I think it's quite obvious by now that he has none. He's essentially admitted this is not a very well-thought out scenario and I guarantee you he never even considered how the anarchism in his hypothetical came about. That is a large part of my point. There is not so much an interest in actual truth here, so much as "catching" anarchists in a position they allegedly cannot defend, or better yet, "debunking anarchism" (as little sense as that phrase even makes).

In other words, the details which you (and virtually everyone else here) have brought up are irrelevant (not to reality and logic, but to the OP's purpose in this thread, apparently.) That's why he has continued to ignore them with every new post. They do nothing to further the agenda, so there is no point in bothering with them.

Re: Anarchism: What happens to the bombs?

Rorschach — Wed, 09 May 2012 23:55:42 GMT

Because you don't have a plausible answer for my scenario.

That's because it's difficult to argue over a vague plot of a hypothetical thriller novel. There's nothing wrong with the questions you're asking, but it's really unclear at this point what you're asking and what assumptions you're making. How did anarchism emerge? How cheap are nuclear bombs at this point? How would the situation be clearly better with a state? Define the scenario with clarity and you might get some sort of Socratic dialogue going.

Re: Anarchism: What happens to the bombs?

John James — Wed, 09 May 2012 23:51:21 GMT

gotlucky:

With all due respect, you are entirely ignoring the actual economics involved. It was not long before the vast majority of people could afford cars and tv's, and that's due to mass production. Would you care to explain the method of mass producing nuclear weapons?

I also sincerely doubt you read the article I linked to by Roderick Long.

^ this.

Again, no one can help you if you're not willing to help yourself. It seems that you are far more interested in furthering your (apparently already decided) view, instead of actually considering the reality presented to you. Are you really seeking truth, or are you simply seeking verification for your decided notion?

Throughout this thread you have continuously ignored the points raised in favor of persisting with your virtually impossible scenario. It's as if you're worried about the potential hazards of elephants gaining the ability to fly:

"I mean, sure it's okay to have birds flying around. They're small and incredibly delicate and light. They can't do any real damage. But just think about all the things birds have crashed into. And they're incredibly small! So it's even less likely that they'd hit things! Just think of that but with elephants. This is a dangerous scenario indeed. We can't be allowing species to evolve. We need to make sure no evolution takes place...lest we face the danger of flying 2 ton death machines with tusks."

One more time. Explain how the average person is going to gain the knowledge, land, capital, raw materials, maintenence personel, and all the other resources necessary to even begin to create and maintain a nuclear weapon. And no, "just look at cars and tv's...Economies of scale, bro" is not a sufficient answer (something else gotlucky addressed.)

So? How about it? Are you going to answer even our main question? Let alone address the other points raised? Or are you just going to keep positing that flying elephants is a genuine concern simply because you can imagine it?

Re: Anarchism: What happens to the bombs?

gotlucky — Wed, 09 May 2012 23:36:08 GMT

With all due respect, you are entirely ignoring the actual economics involved. It was not long before the vast majority of people could afford cars and tv's, and that's due to mass production. Would you care to explain the method of mass producing nuclear weapons?

I also sincerely doubt you read the article I linked to by Roderick Long.

Re: Anarchism: What happens to the bombs?

OldBenjaminNOMORE — Wed, 09 May 2012 23:28:36 GMT

Because you don't have a plausible answer for my scenario.

Once upon a time cars and tvs weren't widely accessible. People found a way to make them accessible. Mind you, I spoke of the future, so imagine a time and place that makes nuclear weapons relatively cheap. Even if they cost a few years worth saving, people would want them as, you know, deterrents to their neighbors, who have a nuke!

Perhaps they are bought out by a billionaire! Perhaps he uses them as bargaining chips to install himself as dictator! If people don't follow him, he'll blow them up!

Never underestimate humans being power-hungry.

Re: Anarchism: What happens to the bombs?

gotlucky — Wed, 09 May 2012 23:20:48 GMT

@OldBenjaminNOMORE

I suggest you read my post, the one that JJ linked to, and then you read Kakugo's post that I linked to in my post. Nuclear weapons are prohibitively expensive for the vast majority of people, and then the cost of maintaining such a weapon is also prohibitively expensive for the vast majority of people.

Your scenario is incredibly implausible. Why should we entertain your hypotheticals when you have yet to respond to either me or Kakugo?

Re: Anarchism: What happens to the bombs?

OldBenjaminNOMORE — Wed, 09 May 2012 23:11:12 GMT

Perhaps I should.

John James,

Under Anarchy, suppose the free market made nuclear weapons accessible to everyone at a reasponable price -- for deterrence naturally...

Imagine a crazed man who, in our current system, may kill 20 or so with an Ak-47. In this system, he buys a nuke, for deterence reasons, naturally, or so the seller beleives.

And then he destroys a city.

Is this plausible to you (in the future)? What do you say to this scenario?

Re: Anarchism: What happens to the bombs?

John James — Wed, 09 May 2012 22:52:38 GMT

? What does that mean? You mean you have no idea how the scenarios you propose would even begin to be plausible?...the very scenarios you base your entire reasoning on?

That doesn't exactly sound very well-thought out to me. Perhaps you should do some more consideration of your positions here.

Re: Anarchism: What happens to the bombs?

OldBenjaminNOMORE — Wed, 09 May 2012 22:46:19 GMT

lol idk man, idk.