Does Iran have the right to nuclear weapons?

[bloomj31]

@Marko

Wether Iran is a threat is not a political position. It is a reality based position.

Fine, you win.

[Marko]

I don`t win. You lose by embracing ignorance.

[Libertarian_for_Life]

@liberty student

But isn’t Israel the country with nukes, who doesn’t follow international law, who isn’t a member of the NPT, who doesn’t allow weapon inspections?

Do you (or anyone else here) know of any articles that talk about this side of Israel?

I’m curious, I only ever hear the mainstream media’s side of the story.

[DD5]

@bloomj31

@liberty student

The entire state is a progressive movement. People who are afraid of Iran are like children, scared of bed time stories or scared of some guy in a bath robe running around the caves of Afghanistan dragging his dialysis machine behind him.

Maybe to you, but I’ve heard what Ahmadinejad has to say about Israel. I think he means business. What happens if he nukes Israel?

What do you think the odds are that Iran drops the 1st bomb?

[Southern]

@bloomj31

Whatever. I’m not here to convince you guys. I’m just saying you’ve not convinced me that Iran isn’t a threat.

Whether or not Iran is a threat is irrelevent. I think everyone here would agree that the possession of nuclear weapons by any state is dangerous. Whether is be due to a state explicitly using them, mistakes, or any other scenario. I think the question that is relevent is; are there other peaceful ways of dealing with a nuclear threat from Iran or any other nation? Possibly there are.

[granrojo]

@Angurse

@granrojo

Does the right to do what you want on your own property stop at your country’s border, or should we trust the market to do the right thing and allow Iran to do as they choose?

I don’t understand the question. Iran certainly isn’t a market nor is there a free market outside of Iran, who would trust something that doesn’t currently exist? However, I think any Iranian, or anyone, or group of “anyones,” certainly should have the freedom to build a nuclear weapon.

The question was asked because many people on this forum believe that if you own a property then you have an absolute right to do what you want on that property, regardless of the consequences to the people around you.

The argument I hear most is that if you leave the market completely unregulated then everything will work itself out in the end for the better. Personally I believe that sometimes your freedom to do what you like on your property infringes other peoples rights, and therefore a better definition of property rights may be required.

I therefore wanted to know if people would extend this idea to the international setting, allowing countries absolute right to do what they choose on their own land. Or would you say that they can’t do something because you believe that the market may not bring about the best outcome on its own?

Yes, I recognise that governments are not people, that’s why I included the second question of whether a private individual should have the right to develop nuclear weapons on their own private property.

It is peoples views on the absolute right of private property that I was interested in. Not whether Iran is a good or bad country etc.

[DD5]

@granrojo

The question was asked because many people on this forum believe that if you own a property then you have an absolute right to do what you want on that property, regardless of the consequences to the people around you.

This is not true.

[Giant_Joe]

@Libertarian_for_Life

@liberty student

But isn’t Israel the country with nukes, who doesn’t follow international law, who isn’t a member of the NPT, who doesn’t allow weapon inspections?

Do you (or anyone else here) know of any articles that talk about this side of Israel?

I’m curious, I only ever hear the mainstream media’s side of the story.

Pat Buchanan will have things on Zionism and Israel: http://buchanan.org/blog/

He gets some of his material from http://antiwar.com/ which also has all sorts of news with regards to current events in the middle east.

[Marko]

@Libertarian_for_Life

@liberty student

But isn’t Israel the country with nukes, who doesn’t follow international law, who isn’t a member of the NPT, who doesn’t allow weapon inspections?

Do you (or anyone else here) know of any articles that talk about this side of Israel?

I’m curious, I only ever hear the mainstream media’s side of the story.

What side of Israel? Do you mean the nuclear issue specifically?

[granrojo]

@DD5

@granrojo

The question was asked because many people on this forum believe that if you own a property then you have an absolute right to do what you want on that property, regardless of the consequences to the people around you.

This is not true.

Fair enough. I shouldn’t generalise, but some certainly do because I’ve been having debates on it.

[baxter]

Sure Iran has a right to nuclear weapons. I have a right to nukes too. According to the Constitution, my right to bear arms shall be uninfringed.

Plus I have a right to liberty. If you enjoy collecting stamps, how come I can’t enjoy collecting nukes?

Edit:

Weapons have purpose in self-defense, specifically deterrence. Most civilians weapons are of this sort.

You can also use nukes to do excavation. Like on the TV show Lost.

[liberty_student]

@granrojo

Fair enough. I shouldn’t generalise, but some certainly do because I’ve been having debates on it.

Name names, provide links please.

[DD5]

@granrojo

@DD5

@granrojo

The question was asked because many people on this forum believe that if you own a property then you have an absolute right to do what you want on that property, regardless of the consequences to the people around you.

This is not true.

Fair enough. I shouldn’t generalise, but some certainly do because I’ve been having debates on it.

Rights never imply that one has the freedom to violate another man’s rights. Rights are defined in the negative. One does not have a right to initiate force against another.

It may be conceded that there will be rare cases where disputes will certainly arise as to whether the action of one individual infringes on the property of another. But there is no logical reason to conclude that such disputes cannot be resolved in a purely voluntary society.

[granrojo]

@liberty student

@granrojo

Fair enough. I shouldn’t generalise, but some certainly do because I’ve been having debates on it.

Name names please.

Well that wouldn’t be nice would it?

However, you will see that I am new around here so it shouldn’t be too hard to look over my previous posts.

That said, I’d rather stick to the current debate rather than start picking at everyone else’s views. I should probably retract my statement about “many people on this forum believe”, it’s not really my place to say what somebody else believes.

[Southern]

@granrojo

@Angurse

@granrojo

Does the right to do what you want on your own property stop at your country’s border, or should we trust the market to do the right thing and allow Iran to do as they choose?

I don’t understand the question. Iran certainly isn’t a market nor is there a free market outside of Iran, who would trust something that doesn’t currently exist? However, I think any Iranian, or anyone, or group of “anyones,” certainly should have the freedom to build a nuclear weapon.

The question was asked because many people on this forum believe that if you own a property then you have an absolute right to do what you want on that property, regardless of the consequences to the people around you.

The argument I hear most is that if you leave the market completely unregulated then everything will work itself out in the end for the better. Personally I believe that sometimes your freedom to do what you like on your property infringes other peoples rights, and therefore a better definition of property rights may be required.

I therefore wanted to know if people would extend this idea to the international setting, allowing countries absolute right to do what they choose on their own land. Or would you say that they can’t do something because you believe that the market may not bring about the best outcome on its own?

Yes, I recognise that governments are not people, that’s why I included the second question of whether a private individual should have the right to develop nuclear weapons on their own private property.

It is peoples views on the absolute right of private property that I was interested in. Not whether Iran is a good or bad country etc.

Is it possible that other individuals by exercising their own property rights could make it impossible to build a nuclear weapon on your own property? It is not a simple task to build a nuclear weapon and requires a huge amount of resources that would involve interaction with countless individuals and their property. Humor me and tell me of ways you think this could be done.

edit sp.

[Juan]

Whatever. I’m not here to convince you guys.

Right. Your purpose for being here is to spout neocon propaganda. And you are not as delusional as to believe that you are going to convince a bunch of radical libertarians that your neocon propaganda is anything different from neocon propaganda.

[granrojo]

@Southern

@granrojo

@Angurse

@granrojo

Does the right to do what you want on your own property stop at your country’s border, or should we trust the market to do the right thing and allow Iran to do as they choose?

I don’t understand the question. Iran certainly isn’t a market nor is there a free market outside of Iran, who would trust something that doesn’t currently exist? However, I think any Iranian, or anyone, or group of “anyones,” certainly should have the freedom to build a nuclear weapon.

The question was asked because many people on this forum believe that if you own a property then you have an absolute right to do what you want on that property, regardless of the consequences to the people around you.

The argument I hear most is that if you leave the market completely unregulated then everything will work itself out in the end for the better. Personally I believe that sometimes your freedom to do what you like on your property infringes other peoples rights, and therefore a better definition of property rights may be required.

I therefore wanted to know if people would extend this idea to the international setting, allowing countries absolute right to do what they choose on their own land. Or would you say that they can’t do something because you believe that the market may not bring about the best outcome on its own?

Yes, I recognise that governments are not people, that’s why I included the second question of whether a private individual should have the right to develop nuclear weapons on their own private property.

It is peoples views on the absolute right of private property that I was interested in. Not whether Iran is a good or bad country etc.

Is it possible that other individuals by excersising their own property rights could make it impossible to build a nuclear weapon on your own property? It is not a simple task to build a nuclear weapon and requires a huge amount of resources that would involve interaction with countless individuals and their property. Humor me and tell me of ways you think this could be done.

It’s the other way round. Not that you can make it impossible for someone else to build nuclear weapons, rather that someone may not feel altogether happy knowing their next door neighbour can cause so much damage with their nuclear weapons. The point is, at what point does somebody say “I know it’s your property but you can’t do that”

As to how it can be done. No idea, not my area of expertise, probably have to Google it

[bloomj31]

@Juan

Whatever. I’m not here to convince you guys.

Right. Your purpose for being here is to spout neocon propaganda. And you are not as delusional as to believe that you are going to convince a bunch of radical libertarians that your neocon propaganda is anything different from neocon propaganda.

I would take this one step further and say that I think it’s very unlikely that anyone’s mind gets changed through internet conversations. No matter what their stance is.

[Angurse]

@granrojo

The question was asked because many people on this forum believe that if you own a property then you have an absolute right to do what you want on that property, regardless of the consequences to the people around you.

You cannot have absolute liberty to do what you want on your property if it a) violates a contract you’ve made prior or b) violates the property of another, as the entire concept of property will be moot. On a side note, I don’t think you really need a “right” to own or use property.

[laminustacitus]

@liberty student

@laminustacitus

All weapons have essentially no purpose but taking life.

Weapons have purpose in self-defense, specifically deterrence.

Nevertheless, self-defense is essentially justified force, which includes killing, and in my statement above I showed that, though some guns can wound, they are designed to kill, especially anything above 9mm. While there are self-defense weapons that are designed to use non lethal (e.g. a taser); guns on the other hand are lethal force, they are designed to kill, and anyone who utilizes a gun in self-defense better be ready to accept the fact that they might very well kill their attacker. Guns are able to deter attackers due to the fact that they are designed to kill. They are not designed to deter, rather they deter because of their design.

@liberty student

Most civilians weapons are of this sort

A civilian gun is still designed to kill.

I wish to emphasize the fact that here, and above I am speaking of guns in particular. While many weapons are, in fact, designed to use non-lethal force, a gun is designed to kill (which is a fact I think we can all agree on, and while there may be exceptions to the rule, my point is still sound).