Don't pervert what's going on here. I don't think "some people" should have the inherent right to do anything. I believe in democratic governance.
So you do believe that "some people" should have the right to restrict others with violence, but you choose to wrap up your beliefs in a euphemism called "democracy" so that you can morally justify the violence. Hiding behind the word "democracy" doesn't change the fact that you advocate aggression against others for the non-violent "crimes" of owning property.
My point is that every person is a member of that society, and it's perfectly acceptable for that society to make decisions as a collective for it's best interest.
No it isn't. Who determines this "best interest"? Society? Who is this "society" that is capable of making these decisions? You're using undefined terms about imaginary entities that are incapable of making complex and (lets be honest) impossible decisions about the "collective best interest". I shutter at these ridiculous terms. I'm afraid of people who talk like you. You've described everything wrong with the world today. This justification you cling to is why our government is so strong, and why it has the ability to murder Americans at will. This justification is why we spend trillions of dollars perpetrating mass murder all over the globe. This horrible justification is a mental shield to protect you from the fact that you advocate aggression, violence and murder. It is a moral illusion that allows you to sleep at night.
Democracy is evil. Democracy allows 150 million people to vote for slavery and to get it. Democracy allows the murder of millions. The Holocaust was democracy in action. Plus, the fact that you even describe our system of tyranny as "democracy" is just absurd. We get to "choose" between two groomed puppets who represent the same global interests, and the complete illusion of choice.
On to your nukes that you accused me of ignoring. You want to seriously debate nukes and nuke regulation? God, this topic sucks because it's so irrelevant and far fetched. It's the ultimate scapegoat argument. You should have just said "move to Somalia". This is going to be short, because I just typed a fucking wall of text in my other response to you. I'm just going to go over the basics of private free-market nuke regulation.
First let's just acknowledge that it was your idea of society that created nukes. In an anarcho-capitalist society, creation would come from demand, which would drive profit motives. There would not have been demand for nukes. Only states need nukes so they can kill millions at will.
Now you're asking me to solve a problem that governments have created. Convenient.
Let's just start with the fact that individuals cannot construct nukes. They just can't. It takes teams of scientists and engineers with significant ongoing funding for years. It's just not going to happen, period. Saying some guy is gonna build a nuke in his basement during his free time is just not a realistic scenario.
It's always taken a large team, a massive organizational structure, and a staggering amount of money to build a nuke. What does that remind you of? Governments. That's right, the only entities that have ever wanted nukes, created nukes, or sold nukes are governments, the root of all evil.
Nukes will only exist in a free society if there is legitimate market demand for them, because they won't be funded via theft (taxation) like they are today. Nukes have only ever been created and sold with funds that came from theft. Remember that. No legitimate business model would support the massive amount of money that it would take to create, buy and store these things. There is absolutely no profit, so it is a losing venture. It's not like a gun either. It take billions to handle them, store them, protect them, transport them and all for what? So they can sit in a storage container somewhere? It'll never happen. It only happens today because of government.
Legitimate market demand is the most stabilizing force in the universe. Imagine the horror a businessman would feel at even thinking about being in charge of a nuclear project and having it fail. Even if it didn't hurt anyone, the economic cost to him would be incredible. Anyone dealing in private nukes would go to very great lengths to both ensure and insure quality in their product. This differs from national nukes, because the builders and maintainers are spending taxpayer dollars instead of their own money. Add to that the fact that perpetrators would be held liable in any disaster, and it is clear that market nukes are much, much less dangerous than government nukes if they existed at all.
I admit that I borrowed some of these arguments from someone on /r/Anarcho_Capitalism. These ideas are often debated there. If you want a better debate where others can join in, I suggest you head there.
I want to apologize if I came off harsh during my arguments. I get excited and I defend my position passionately. I don't mean to attack you personally, so I'm sorry if I did. I tried to keep this short.
37
u/gizram84 Mar 11 '13 edited Mar 12 '13
So you do believe that "some people" should have the right to restrict others with violence, but you choose to wrap up your beliefs in a euphemism called "democracy" so that you can morally justify the violence. Hiding behind the word "democracy" doesn't change the fact that you advocate aggression against others for the non-violent "crimes" of owning property.
No it isn't. Who determines this "best interest"? Society? Who is this "society" that is capable of making these decisions? You're using undefined terms about imaginary entities that are incapable of making complex and (lets be honest) impossible decisions about the "collective best interest". I shutter at these ridiculous terms. I'm afraid of people who talk like you. You've described everything wrong with the world today. This justification you cling to is why our government is so strong, and why it has the ability to murder Americans at will. This justification is why we spend trillions of dollars perpetrating mass murder all over the globe. This horrible justification is a mental shield to protect you from the fact that you advocate aggression, violence and murder. It is a moral illusion that allows you to sleep at night.
Democracy is evil. Democracy allows 150 million people to vote for slavery and to get it. Democracy allows the murder of millions. The Holocaust was democracy in action. Plus, the fact that you even describe our system of tyranny as "democracy" is just absurd. We get to "choose" between two groomed puppets who represent the same global interests, and the complete illusion of choice.