but people will buy nuclear weapons!

[DaveDoggOwns]

Nukes can't be used in self-defense BUT they could be used for third party retialiation. Allies can hold nukes to instill the fear of M.A.D. in possible enemies. I honestly don't think there is such thing as an "assault weapon".

[Cailwyn]

Good video, but I wouldn't call the nuclear card the "most ridiculous" arguement against the free market of weapons. In my view it is actually the strongest. Still weak enough to be easily debunked but, with the ramifications imposed by nukes, it's the best they could have. I would argue that it would be nearly impossible to use a WMD without initiating force and, therefore, posessing one is in itself an act of agression. WMD's, unlike any other weapons, are inherently evil.

[T850CSM101a1676]

I don't think there's a problem with keeping those anymore. Why fear it? We've had to live with *you know who* having them for SO long.

Meh.

[shoeboxed360]

i dnt like it, it will leave ppl wivout guns and militanty training dependant on those with guns and training, and so the price will be pushed up and with no regulations they can charge what they what, and if u cnt afford it then ur on ur own in a lawless socity, which would not be a gd idea...

[shoeboxed360]

plus, this is a quote from benjamin tucker

"Man's only right to land is his might over it. If his neighbor is mightier than he and takes the land from him, then the land is his neighbor's, until the latter is dispossessed by one mightier still."

sounds like war to me...

[Rainzkul]

Sounds like Tucker in his later, crazed, "Mad Max" Stirner-following years. Definitely not the Tucker who advocated legitimate property rights and voluntary exchange as a base for society.

[shoeboxed360]

i just found it on wikipedia, i think, dnt know nethin bout him really, just that he was important in the free market anachist phylosothy (spelling)

[Rainzkul]

Max Stirner was a philosopher who Tucker eventually became a follower of. In his earlier years, Tucker was an advocate of property rights and the non-aggression principle.

[T850CSM101a1676]

I'm starting to think that's not a bad thing...really!

[everything4every1]

Your argument seems to rest on the assumption that purely free market capitalism is not aggressive in anyway. How can a system which requires continuous growth not be aggressive? If one business controlled a resource that another business could profit from, and they had the weaponry to take it, why wouldn't they?

[thorsmitersaw]

It is not saying that free markets are non aggressive (your use of capitalism is wrong unless you are going by the strictly Austrian definition of the term).

That you think "capitalism" is reliant upon continuous growth is false as well. That is simply a falsehood propagated by Keynsians and the like.

[thorsmitersaw]

as for your why shouldn't i just shoot you and take your shit argument (as if that hasnt been addressed umpteen times by anarchists of all breeds), but just for starters:

A - you are assuming the actors exist in some sort of vacuum away from third parties who may intervene, or from the prying eyes of concerned consumers

B - you are failing to recognize that war is prohibitively expensive unless you can force others to pay for it (state)

[everything4every1]

But surely there would be a demand for cost effective wars, so wouldn't the market provide that?

[thorsmitersaw]

UN like state, the legitimate business of defense or mutual aid defense organization, is incapable of forcibly socializing its costs. The state merely robs in order to fund its wars, it can fraud us through monetary expansion and the like. A private business cannot do this unless it itself BECOMES a state (a criminal organization). And it is free competition amongst these security providers that would prevent this formation.

[everything4every1]

You can delete this comment. I deleted yours. Or you could keep it up to prove you superior debating ability. But since you accuse me of 'dodging the question' I thought I'd return the favour.

I didn't ask anything about forcibly socializing costs or how a state funds it's wars or whether a private business could replicate their methods.

What I asked is if their was demand for a product (an affordable method of warfare) wouldn't the market work out a way to provide that product?

[thorsmitersaw]

I don't delete anyones posts unless it is spam

It is directly relate to the comment you posted. "But surely there would be a demand for cost effective wars, so wouldn't the market provide that?" It is economically impractical to wage war. Not all demand creates a supplier. There are obviously few producers of purple washing machines and nuclear powered toaster ovens because the demand is too low or the means to bring that product about are not feasible. Not to mention public opinion & the like

[everything4every1]

So basically what you're arguing is that there would be basically no demand from corporations for a cost effective method of using force to destroy their competitors. If criminal gangs can find the funds to wage war against each other why couldn't corporations?

[everything4every1]

If criminal gangs can find the funds to wage war against each other why couldn't corporations?

[Sm0keAndM1rr0rs]

Waging war is a financial disaster and can only be made possible by robbing the pubic purse and shifting the cost to the citizenry. A free market entity simply cannot do this because its services are voluntary purchased. A defense agency dumb enough to initiate aggression will be financially cut off by a sudden loss of consumer contribution and will easily be neutralized by its peaceful competitors. The corporation could collapse and go bankrupt.

[Sm0keAndM1rr0rs]

Secondly, you mention how gangs can find the funds. Gangs usually make money through selling drugs at artificilly high prices due to the existence of the state, something that would be impossible in a free market society. They can also extort private citizens for protection, but it would be laughable considering the efficiency of private police and every citizen being completely free to arm themselves out in the open.

[everything4every1]

Setting a side your argument for a moment, your analogy is terrible. Your analogy doesn't argue that free markets won't produce nuclear weapons, if it could be said to argue anything, it would be that just because one person uses a weapon (in this case a fist) irresponsibly doesn't mean that another person necessarily will. That's a completely different argument to whether or not free markets will produce nuclear weapons.

[thorsmitersaw]

My point is that they are using a thing that is the product of a NON free market as an attack UPON the free market. Should I hold you hostage, then declare all the ill effects of you being held hostage as an attack upon you being free, I fail to see how that can be taken seriously by anyone.

[T850CSM101a1676]

Without the government to maintain them, they'll decay anyway.

[T850CSM101a1676]

Hey Box! This makes sense, I heard that idiot sixx use it on the N&P forum back on crapspace.

[Genowulf]

ALL GUNS! ALL GUNS BLAZING! Painkiller era priest is my favourite. Excellent points btw.

[XOmniverse]

Judas Priest FTW!

[thorsmitersaw]

I thought that you in particular might enjoy some Judas Priest on this one :-)

[BenHimes]

Turbo Lover.  You need to have a video in which you use the song "Turbo Lover" by Judas Priest. Make it relevant, but use "Turbo Lover."

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

A typical counter to this is acknowledging that, yes, the state alone is responsible for funding, building, storing and using nuclear weapons, but such devices are here to stay and therefore require a monopoly to prevent Armageddon. Of course, if humanity at large must be kept in check to prevent Armageddon, then clearly a single monopoly is not a sane means of doing that. Fundamentally, the principle is no different than that applying to any other type of arms.

[thorsmitersaw]

Right. Plus I think people fail to realize that nuclear weapons are largely within an anarchistic relationship already with the lack of a world government.

I am one who is of the opinion that nuclear proliferation is not entirely a bad thing. (hear me out)

Step 1 and 2 to ensure that the western powers do not invade your lands: (1)develop a nuke and (2)the means to deliver it.

I do not think it is mere coincidence that the USA never raises a finger against nuclear armed nations.

[D4Shawn]

My fists are registered as deadly weapons. They're also insured since I'm a deadly weapon model for Karate Chop Magazine.

[brainpolice2]

It's a common fallacy. Kind of the opposite of the vulgar libtarian fallacy.