This is so preposterous. Christians are going to secretly build nuclear missiles with launch capability and launch them? No one will notice the resources being used? No one will put 2 and 2 together? All of these Christians will keep it hushed? All the people who supply the materials will keep quiet???
Christians can't keep their gay rent boys quiet, ffs.
This is just the last stand of desperate statism. Create fear or a threat and declare the state is needed to save us from it. Nonsense.
Even in the US and the developed world, we have pockets of anarchy. The illegal drug trade is one example. Another example pertaining to the developed world is any contract where the cost of using the government to enforce the contract is prohibitively high. If you want to understand the course of human history and the world today then you should understand anarchy. Lack of government does not mean lack of governance.
The video poster also poorly understands anarchy. In a global scope the world is anarchic. No entity has a legitimized monopoly of the use of force on the whole globe. International commerce takes place in anarchic conditions and accounts for 25% of world GDP. As for developing nations in Africa and most of the nations in the world, the governments are so weak that they are not effective at enforcing a territorial monopoly on the use of force. Most developing nations exist in a state of anarchy.
Look at the history of government, most have been embarrassing failures that have lead to wars, famine, and genocide for the benefit of some individuals at the expense of many others. Anarchy breaks the government monopoly on the use of force giving people more options and creates a society where competing state-like entities are more accountable to individuals.
People would be incentivized in such a society to discourage the use of force especially because of the large and devastating impact nuclear weapons directly and indirectly have on everyone in the world.
I will note that anarchy does not guarantee that people act ethically. It certainly incentivizes it though. There is nothing that guarantees that states act ethically either and look at where that has gotten the world.
It is easy to understand how that gun wielder is incentivized to abuse his power or at least how he will be viewed as an oppressor by at least some members of the group who cannot do anything to preserve their liberties.
To continue with that analogy, anarchy would be the same as giving everyone in the group a gun. It evens the playing field and encourages voluntary cooperation within the group. Nuclear weapons are not to be feared since they would only encourage cooperation within a society.
What is a state? It is a legitimized (though not legitimate) territorial monopoly on the use of force. To understand what behavior is encouraged of an entity that gains that monopoly a simple analogy is all that is necessary. Consider a group of people where one individual wields a gun. Consider how that gun holder might choose to act. He might act like an African dictator and exploit the group for his own benefit. He might also attempt to promote the "common good" through majority vote.
All libertarians and even anarcho-capitalist/anarchist libertarians are fundamentally against the initiation of force. Ethically using nuclear weapons or any other type of force from people is wrong. Those of us who do advocate anarchy do so specifically because governments by definition must initiate force in order to exist. Taxation is the initiation of force and even if it is possible to voluntarily fund a state, a state would be an aggressor if it forcefully prevented competition.
People need to realize that the initiation of force is immoral before anarchy. Ofcourse the world would burn down to a ball of cinder if we ended statism NOW. But I dont think anyone seriuosly believe this to happen now either. But I guess that libertarianism is the next best thing, because you will still have the state do things like you say; protect us from WMDs. Your title should really be "Giving up on anarchism" because you dont really argue against libertarianism. Good question tho.
i see where your going with this, it think one atomic weapon going off somewhere wouldnt end the world and so anarcho-capitalism at this point would still be preferable. the problem arises at some point in the future when it becomes possible for private institutions to create weapons that could destroy the whole planet, i.e. a grey goo scenario, then it gets tricky. Having some institution have a monopoly on this technology would decrease the likely hood that it would actually be used.
Saying some random butthole could just "derka der make a nuclear weapon"
is saying one random butthole is going to own a mining company,
processing plant, highly skilled workers,
a company of Other truck drivers to transport everything, the land for it all, and everything else required to run things to create a final product after months of time just production after all that coming together,
Ok I stopped watching right after he mentioned nuclear weapons. No, shitwit, some random truck driver isn't going to have the means, to even create all the means, of constructing a nuclear bomb.
You need thousands of centrifuges, you need all the means to obtain the material that they are there to process, you need the power to run it all, and knowledge to use the material afterward, ect. ect.
In short, you need to either be a national Gov. or akin to Bill Gates and hellaciously single minded.
making nuclear bombs seems like a pretty obvious threat of deadly violence against innocent people and property. it isn't something supported by libertarianism because it violates the non-aggression principle
Most western Libertarians are just social darwinists who don't like taxes, a lot of the big names in libertarianism are business tycoons and the shills of corporations trying to promote anti-tax bullshit because they only care about maximizing profits.
Also good question. I often ask Libertarians if we should have unregulated nuclear power plants, a few say yes, there's just no hope for people that stupid (they're underregulated as it is).
I'm a state minimalist cooperative socialist myself.
^ Best way to see what cooperative socialism is about is to look up Worker Cooperatives on youtube, FreeTheWorker (unfortunately a paulbot) has a great video up on it.
It's basically that, with a minimal state that provides necessary social functions like safety regulations for nuclear power plants, basic welfare, civic defense, ect.
Compared to the current state the government would be less necessary and scaled back to the important stuff. Like in Mondragon in Spain.
Yeah, couldn't watch past your scare mongering in the first minute: "The news told me a truck driver tried to build a nuclear bomb, ergo without the current political structure everyone would have nuclear weapons."
Our government is not comprised of madmen, Cadicus, it is comprised of men who have emotions. Mistakes are made when people are under pressure in an unusual situation.
@regresseur Way to be a douche, and completely misconstrue my statement. I didn't say that it excuses the death of innocent people, but just being a member of Congress who votes for war does not make you a madman, just a man.
Who would they threaten with these weapons in a free society? Your religious scenario is completely made up, there is nothing in the bible or any religious book about nukes.
What's the incentive?
You need more than a doctorate. You need facilities, it's very difficult to do.
But besides all of this, this is not a flaw. If there are people in the world who pose a threat(which seems unlikely to me) then we would just need protection. Anti nuke defense would cost less than american militarism.
You're a fucking moron. Even if anarchism would ban the make of neuclear weapon it wouldn't make it more than slightly harder to build one. The hard part about building such a bomb IS NOT to keep it a secret you're doing so.
If you mean anything about your love for liberty you should praise we're now about to enter an era where WMD is in the hands of the individual. Statists will not give up their psychopathy, steal- and share mentality, without a very real threath of being killed altogether.
Was it not government that subsidized the creation of Nukes, in fact all war? Even if this were not the case, anarchy is not the scope of Libertarianism. They are separate concepts.
Anarcho-libertarianism is childish. It's all fine for you, you steroided up, gun toter, but then someone's gonna kill your mother and rob her. As soon as you want another entity to find out who did it, you'd recreated police. As soon as YOUR grandmother gets old and infirm and you're faced with her starving on the street or living with you... You'll want a Social Security, etc... They do need to grow up.
Anarchism and Libertarianism are not synonymous. Libertarianism supports limited government anarchism wants NO government. So your question is.. What is to stop a small group in the US from creating and using nuclear weapons without government. The answer is.. be a libertarian that will have a government and states that will regulate such B.S. If someone does it secretly then what good is the government anyway big or small. I could elaborate much more but only allowed so many characters.
You seriously need to look into the libertarian movement more closely. Given some highly touted libertarian premises (like the NAP, touted by Ron Paul himself), all government is illegitimate. Most anarchist libertarians see minarchist libertarians as pseudo-libertarians
Fuck your condescending description. No political stance is any more "mature" than any other (though most people hold their political position for "immature" reasons, cest la humains)
A state is the least regulated and restricted entity which is currently possible.
Failing to understand this after years of exposure to libertarian theory is idiotic. Unless you have some groundbreaking argument which destroys the incentive structure paradigm held up by many libertarians and anarchists (I am not holding my breath)
In the anarchist paradigm, what is to keep religious fundamentalists from obtaining or building a nuclear weapon and using it on a rival sect. It dioesn't even have to be religious fanatics though. What if a private company could profit greatly from wiping out people with a neutron bomb that were sitting on valuable resources?
I think that the government is evil, corrupt, and has few sterling qualities, but generally governments have been competent about keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of madmen. What free market solution is there to prevent nuclear holocaust?
From my perspective, "government" doesn't have any special qualities which make it less profitable for them to use nukes, in fact, given a society which has adopted a rejection of government as a part of the "natural order," entities within that society actually have slightly greater disincentives to do such things.
And as far as empirical evidence goes, there has not been great success in securing nukes. Lots of unaccounted for material from Russia.
This is a case of a "failed state" and I see no reason to believe that that an "unfailed society" will have greater success in proliferation control than "unfailed states" have.
@blackacidlizzard Not sure exactly what point you are trying to make here. I do like the idea of anarchist libertarianism however that will never work in a monetary system b/c as long as one person has more money then another we will have rulers. As far as proliferation is concerned I believe the best way to pursue that is non interventionism as it will strongly decrease the incentive. As far as stopping some random nut jobs with with money and resources from destroying shit? I dunno.
"as long as one person has more money then another we will have rulers"
If you like to see the spectre of the archon in every motherfucking aspect of human interaction like many of these annoying "real anarchist" (read: "hates capitalism more than the state") types do, than yes. I am not as concerned about "hierarchy" in that sense, and this is typical for us less-left-wing state-smashers. We're not seeking an egalitarian paradise, just a land with less murder and fewer chains.
@CadicusTheDamned Our government isn't comprised of madmen? I didn't know that needlessly invading a country and wiping out 100's of thousands of people was the act / decision of a non-sociopathic / -psychotic person. You seem concerned about the lives of others, so I think you ought to ruminate over your assumptions a bit longer. Let's quibble over imaginary scenarios and scare-stories and ignore the mountains of bodies beside us.
@CadicusTheDamned If you think government is indeed evil and corrupt, it is your duty to come up with solutions not involving the state instead of attempting last ditch attempts to cram the state somewhere back in the equation. Even if YOU do not find free market solutions to your perceived problem, the state still isn't an answer because by your own standard, it is evil and corrupt.
@CadicusTheDamned "but generally governments have been competent about keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of madmen."
George Bush is sane? The soviet union was sane?
"What free market solution is there to prevent nuclear holocaust?"
Are you serious? Governments created all the nuclear weapons and brought us to the edge of nuclear annihilation. What market demand is there for tens of thousands of useless nuclear weapons? Nuclear proliferation is symptom of states, not free markets.
Good video! I'm glad to see you're growing up politically.
Good luck,,
Starmexus84
Yewon2001 1 week ago in playlist Uploaded videos
This is so preposterous. Christians are going to secretly build nuclear missiles with launch capability and launch them? No one will notice the resources being used? No one will put 2 and 2 together? All of these Christians will keep it hushed? All the people who supply the materials will keep quiet???
Christians can't keep their gay rent boys quiet, ffs.
This is just the last stand of desperate statism. Create fear or a threat and declare the state is needed to save us from it. Nonsense.
shlockofgod 1 week ago
Even in the US and the developed world, we have pockets of anarchy. The illegal drug trade is one example. Another example pertaining to the developed world is any contract where the cost of using the government to enforce the contract is prohibitively high. If you want to understand the course of human history and the world today then you should understand anarchy. Lack of government does not mean lack of governance.
aphorism100 2 weeks ago
The video poster also poorly understands anarchy. In a global scope the world is anarchic. No entity has a legitimized monopoly of the use of force on the whole globe. International commerce takes place in anarchic conditions and accounts for 25% of world GDP. As for developing nations in Africa and most of the nations in the world, the governments are so weak that they are not effective at enforcing a territorial monopoly on the use of force. Most developing nations exist in a state of anarchy.
aphorism100 2 weeks ago
Look at the history of government, most have been embarrassing failures that have lead to wars, famine, and genocide for the benefit of some individuals at the expense of many others. Anarchy breaks the government monopoly on the use of force giving people more options and creates a society where competing state-like entities are more accountable to individuals.
aphorism100 2 weeks ago
People would be incentivized in such a society to discourage the use of force especially because of the large and devastating impact nuclear weapons directly and indirectly have on everyone in the world.
I will note that anarchy does not guarantee that people act ethically. It certainly incentivizes it though. There is nothing that guarantees that states act ethically either and look at where that has gotten the world.
aphorism100 2 weeks ago
It is easy to understand how that gun wielder is incentivized to abuse his power or at least how he will be viewed as an oppressor by at least some members of the group who cannot do anything to preserve their liberties.
To continue with that analogy, anarchy would be the same as giving everyone in the group a gun. It evens the playing field and encourages voluntary cooperation within the group. Nuclear weapons are not to be feared since they would only encourage cooperation within a society.
aphorism100 2 weeks ago
What is a state? It is a legitimized (though not legitimate) territorial monopoly on the use of force. To understand what behavior is encouraged of an entity that gains that monopoly a simple analogy is all that is necessary. Consider a group of people where one individual wields a gun. Consider how that gun holder might choose to act. He might act like an African dictator and exploit the group for his own benefit. He might also attempt to promote the "common good" through majority vote.
aphorism100 2 weeks ago
All libertarians and even anarcho-capitalist/anarchist libertarians are fundamentally against the initiation of force. Ethically using nuclear weapons or any other type of force from people is wrong. Those of us who do advocate anarchy do so specifically because governments by definition must initiate force in order to exist. Taxation is the initiation of force and even if it is possible to voluntarily fund a state, a state would be an aggressor if it forcefully prevented competition.
aphorism100 2 weeks ago
Libertarianism is not anarchism you idiot.
SuperWaterboy17 2 weeks ago
People need to realize that the initiation of force is immoral before anarchy. Ofcourse the world would burn down to a ball of cinder if we ended statism NOW. But I dont think anyone seriuosly believe this to happen now either. But I guess that libertarianism is the next best thing, because you will still have the state do things like you say; protect us from WMDs. Your title should really be "Giving up on anarchism" because you dont really argue against libertarianism. Good question tho.
herrowdar 2 weeks ago
i see where your going with this, it think one atomic weapon going off somewhere wouldnt end the world and so anarcho-capitalism at this point would still be preferable. the problem arises at some point in the future when it becomes possible for private institutions to create weapons that could destroy the whole planet, i.e. a grey goo scenario, then it gets tricky. Having some institution have a monopoly on this technology would decrease the likely hood that it would actually be used.
xcvsdxvsx 3 weeks ago
Saying some random butthole could just "derka der make a nuclear weapon"
is saying one random butthole is going to own a mining company,
processing plant, highly skilled workers,
a company of Other truck drivers to transport everything, the land for it all, and everything else required to run things to create a final product after months of time just production after all that coming together,
taking millions upon millions in wealth
to end up with just one bomb.
No. You are wrong. Stfu plz.
Premier112 3 weeks ago
Ok I stopped watching right after he mentioned nuclear weapons. No, shitwit, some random truck driver isn't going to have the means, to even create all the means, of constructing a nuclear bomb.
You need thousands of centrifuges, you need all the means to obtain the material that they are there to process, you need the power to run it all, and knowledge to use the material afterward, ect. ect.
In short, you need to either be a national Gov. or akin to Bill Gates and hellaciously single minded.
Premier112 3 weeks ago
making nuclear bombs seems like a pretty obvious threat of deadly violence against innocent people and property. it isn't something supported by libertarianism because it violates the non-aggression principle
Intangion 4 weeks ago
Most western Libertarians are just social darwinists who don't like taxes, a lot of the big names in libertarianism are business tycoons and the shills of corporations trying to promote anti-tax bullshit because they only care about maximizing profits.
Also good question. I often ask Libertarians if we should have unregulated nuclear power plants, a few say yes, there's just no hope for people that stupid (they're underregulated as it is).
I'm a state minimalist cooperative socialist myself.
Laughingblades 1 month ago
^ Best way to see what cooperative socialism is about is to look up Worker Cooperatives on youtube, FreeTheWorker (unfortunately a paulbot) has a great video up on it.
It's basically that, with a minimal state that provides necessary social functions like safety regulations for nuclear power plants, basic welfare, civic defense, ect.
Compared to the current state the government would be less necessary and scaled back to the important stuff. Like in Mondragon in Spain.
Laughingblades 1 month ago
Yeah, couldn't watch past your scare mongering in the first minute: "The news told me a truck driver tried to build a nuclear bomb, ergo without the current political structure everyone would have nuclear weapons."
quietthomas 1 month ago 3
Our government is not comprised of madmen, Cadicus, it is comprised of men who have emotions. Mistakes are made when people are under pressure in an unusual situation.
UsernameFECKLE 1 month ago
@UsernameFECKLE Mistakes that result in the needless killing of countless people. "Oopsy, my bad!" Cool story, bro....
regresseur 1 month ago
@regresseur Way to be a douche, and completely misconstrue my statement. I didn't say that it excuses the death of innocent people, but just being a member of Congress who votes for war does not make you a madman, just a man.
UsernameFECKLE 1 month ago
Hu-man
UsernameFECKLE 1 month ago
weird YouTube comment section
UsernameFECKLE 1 month ago
Hu-man
UsernameFECKLE 1 month ago
Even if anarchism is impossible, small government is preferable so why are you giving up libertarianism?
mattpolofka 2 months ago
Who would they threaten with these weapons in a free society? Your religious scenario is completely made up, there is nothing in the bible or any religious book about nukes.
What's the incentive?
You need more than a doctorate. You need facilities, it's very difficult to do.
But besides all of this, this is not a flaw. If there are people in the world who pose a threat(which seems unlikely to me) then we would just need protection. Anti nuke defense would cost less than american militarism.
mattpolofka 2 months ago
You're a fucking moron. Even if anarchism would ban the make of neuclear weapon it wouldn't make it more than slightly harder to build one. The hard part about building such a bomb IS NOT to keep it a secret you're doing so.
If you mean anything about your love for liberty you should praise we're now about to enter an era where WMD is in the hands of the individual. Statists will not give up their psychopathy, steal- and share mentality, without a very real threath of being killed altogether.
Idol2011no 2 months ago
Was it not government that subsidized the creation of Nukes, in fact all war? Even if this were not the case, anarchy is not the scope of Libertarianism. They are separate concepts.
xxxxAXIxxxx 2 months ago
Anarcho-libertarianism is childish. It's all fine for you, you steroided up, gun toter, but then someone's gonna kill your mother and rob her. As soon as you want another entity to find out who did it, you'd recreated police. As soon as YOUR grandmother gets old and infirm and you're faced with her starving on the street or living with you... You'll want a Social Security, etc... They do need to grow up.
DblOSmith 3 months ago
@DblOSmith
Right. Because libertarians have never talked about collective defense or social safety nets without the state.
Do research or shut the fuck up.
Idiot.
blackacidlizzard 3 months ago
Anarchism and Libertarianism are not synonymous. Libertarianism supports limited government anarchism wants NO government. So your question is.. What is to stop a small group in the US from creating and using nuclear weapons without government. The answer is.. be a libertarian that will have a government and states that will regulate such B.S. If someone does it secretly then what good is the government anyway big or small. I could elaborate much more but only allowed so many characters.
dcaroon 3 months ago
@dcaroon
You seriously need to look into the libertarian movement more closely. Given some highly touted libertarian premises (like the NAP, touted by Ron Paul himself), all government is illegitimate. Most anarchist libertarians see minarchist libertarians as pseudo-libertarians
blackacidlizzard 3 months ago
This has also been my major problem with anarchism too. I'm not sure if I thought of it myself or heard it somewhere.
TheScrewOnHead 3 months ago
Fuck your condescending description. No political stance is any more "mature" than any other (though most people hold their political position for "immature" reasons, cest la humains)
blackacidlizzard 3 months ago 3
@blackacidlizzard
Anarchism is not viable. Nuclear weapons necessitate regulation and restriction. Not recognizing this is immature.
CadicusTheDamned 3 months ago
@CadicusTheDamned
A state is the least regulated and restricted entity which is currently possible.
Failing to understand this after years of exposure to libertarian theory is idiotic. Unless you have some groundbreaking argument which destroys the incentive structure paradigm held up by many libertarians and anarchists (I am not holding my breath)
blackacidlizzard 3 months ago
@blackacidlizzard
Incentive: The Second Coming.
CadicusTheDamned 3 months ago
@CadicusTheDamned
While the tone is clear, the meaning is not.
blackacidlizzard 3 months ago
@blackacidlizzard
In the anarchist paradigm, what is to keep religious fundamentalists from obtaining or building a nuclear weapon and using it on a rival sect. It dioesn't even have to be religious fanatics though. What if a private company could profit greatly from wiping out people with a neutron bomb that were sitting on valuable resources?
CadicusTheDamned 3 months ago
@blackacidlizzard
I think that the government is evil, corrupt, and has few sterling qualities, but generally governments have been competent about keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of madmen. What free market solution is there to prevent nuclear holocaust?
CadicusTheDamned 3 months ago
@CadicusTheDamned
From my perspective, "government" doesn't have any special qualities which make it less profitable for them to use nukes, in fact, given a society which has adopted a rejection of government as a part of the "natural order," entities within that society actually have slightly greater disincentives to do such things.
And as far as empirical evidence goes, there has not been great success in securing nukes. Lots of unaccounted for material from Russia.
(continued)
blackacidlizzard 3 months ago
(continued)
This is a case of a "failed state" and I see no reason to believe that that an "unfailed society" will have greater success in proliferation control than "unfailed states" have.
blackacidlizzard 3 months ago
@blackacidlizzard
correction: *a LESSER success in proliferation control*
blackacidlizzard 3 months ago
@blackacidlizzard Not sure exactly what point you are trying to make here. I do like the idea of anarchist libertarianism however that will never work in a monetary system b/c as long as one person has more money then another we will have rulers. As far as proliferation is concerned I believe the best way to pursue that is non interventionism as it will strongly decrease the incentive. As far as stopping some random nut jobs with with money and resources from destroying shit? I dunno.
dcaroon 3 months ago
@dcaroon
"as long as one person has more money then another we will have rulers"
If you like to see the spectre of the archon in every motherfucking aspect of human interaction like many of these annoying "real anarchist" (read: "hates capitalism more than the state") types do, than yes. I am not as concerned about "hierarchy" in that sense, and this is typical for us less-left-wing state-smashers. We're not seeking an egalitarian paradise, just a land with less murder and fewer chains.
blackacidlizzard 3 months ago
@blackacidlizzard
Anarchists just want to walk around with their wangs hanging out of their pants.
CadicusTheDamned 3 months ago
@CadicusTheDamned
social democrats just want a mommy to take care of them.
;p
blackacidlizzard 3 months ago
@CadicusTheDamned Our government isn't comprised of madmen? I didn't know that needlessly invading a country and wiping out 100's of thousands of people was the act / decision of a non-sociopathic / -psychotic person. You seem concerned about the lives of others, so I think you ought to ruminate over your assumptions a bit longer. Let's quibble over imaginary scenarios and scare-stories and ignore the mountains of bodies beside us.
regresseur 1 month ago
@CadicusTheDamned If you think government is indeed evil and corrupt, it is your duty to come up with solutions not involving the state instead of attempting last ditch attempts to cram the state somewhere back in the equation. Even if YOU do not find free market solutions to your perceived problem, the state still isn't an answer because by your own standard, it is evil and corrupt.
StrafingMoose 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@CadicusTheDamned Why is it that only the sociopaths/madmen in the government setting off nukes?
philharis09 1 month ago
@CadicusTheDamned the free market has no incentive to destroy itself.
PrecisePuncher 1 month ago
@CadicusTheDamned Corrupt Governments got nukes in the hands of mad men.
Libertarianism is not anarchism they are two separate Ideologies.
Bearlizard777 4 weeks ago
@CadicusTheDamned The initiation of force created the nuclear bomb.
critter505 4 weeks ago
@CadicusTheDamned Politicians are madmen. Who's to say they won't use one of these nuclear bombs AGAIN, in the next war they initiate?
tonyfalca 3 weeks ago
@CadicusTheDamned "but generally governments have been competent about keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of madmen."
George Bush is sane? The soviet union was sane?
"What free market solution is there to prevent nuclear holocaust?"
Are you serious? Governments created all the nuclear weapons and brought us to the edge of nuclear annihilation. What market demand is there for tens of thousands of useless nuclear weapons? Nuclear proliferation is symptom of states, not free markets.
shlockofgod 1 week ago