Well if your premise is humans are beasts and need to be coerced by the button to keep their place, then there is no other solution. If your premise is humans are rational animals and don’t find coercion to be a suitable way to get the job done, then there is another solution.
Do you need the button pointed at you to keep your aggression in check?
This is nonsense utopianism.
The idea that society should ban nuclear to force itself to cooperate is exactly analogous to banning guns to force people to cooperate.
Ownership of weapons is not coercion.
Do you need a gun pointed at you to keep you in check? Do you own one anyway?
HAHA. Lately I was missing the amazing wisdom of conservatives…
edit : On second thoughts, What is utopian ?
That property rights will be respected in the absence of defense of property. Arming yourself disincentives crime, always has - always will.
His appeal to finding another way is a tired argument. Rejecting weapons will not cause humans to find an alternate method of interaction. A disappearance of weapons will have to be a symptom, not a cause, of a changed human condition.
Why not ? I thought people do what’s right because, well, it’s right, not because they are afraid of being shot.
Maybe - although I don’t think it’s a real issue. At any rate, is it relevant to war ?
Instead of armed peace and collectivism (‘nations’) we can have real cooperation - war has no place in a free world - I thought that kind of view was part of the quintessence of libertarianism ? Where’s the tired argument ?
I don’t think the argument was that rejecting/banning weapons is the solution. And I argued that banning weapons such as a-bombs is practical nonsense since other ‘weapons of mass destruction’ are easy to manufacture.
Agreed.
We’d have to stop shooting people to test that hypothesis.
But clearly, many people do the wrong thing despite risk of being shot.
1-And this is nonsense, wild assertions. I never said “ban” first of all. Cause when I did, I corrected myself and said that’s the wrong word. And the owner of a nuclear weapon is not for self-defense that much is for sure. So it is for coercion. Seriously, a nuclear weapon goes off and innocents are killed - not only the enemy (if the enemy dies at all in the first place, the two that went off in Japan killed innocents and wasn’t even a military target) - so it’s not for self-defense at all.
I never talked about a gun. Stay on topic. This was a wildly asserting post JonBostwick.
Again - your wild assertions JonBostwick with “weapons” plural. I was talking about nuclear weapons and they are not for self-defense. They do not stop the perpetrator, the injustice. They murder innocents. You may get some perps killed, but innocents will be massively killed as well. That’s not self-defense that’s aggression and unjust.
And again it’s not about banning nuclear weapons. It’s more about what they are for and it’s not for self-defense.
The NAP is based on faith. There’s no way over the is - ought gap.
So? What’s this have to do with nuclear weapons not being for self-defense? Again people are making wild assertions about what I’m saying. I’m saying I know somebody, a society, has a nuke, they don’t have it for self-defense. It’s not going to simply rid the bad guys. It’s going to kill innocents too. I mean I’m not talking about rocket science. I’m not talking about banning nukes. And I know there’s people that are coercive. I know there’s criminals. And those with nukes are criminally minded.