No, it shows that a society can suppress and violate rights that exist.
Since it’s a “have you stopped beating your wife” kind of question - no, I can’t answer that. Have you stopped beating your wife?
In a society where anyone is able to obtain almost any commodity or technology legally, and with limited to no regulations, those with nothing to lose (and there would be plenty) would send quite a wake up call to the citizens with plenty to lose.
Didn’t we spend 2 or 3 pages on that? Whatever, I can’t be bothered to go look. I’ll retract it since you now seem to be acknowledging that a libertarian society could only work if your extremely narrow views were imposed on everyone.
Whatever. Relevance?
No, we’re talking about a time when society was a lot closer to what you’re advocating. There are a lot more protections and transparency now. Things you’d like to get rid of.
Nirvana fallacy. We can’t prevent all possible negative outcomes with the existing system, so we should remove all the protections we do have? How is that helping?
Do you really think that Libertopia would be better at stopping roving warlords with armed bands than the current US government?
So the right to own a gun is one of your cosmically inalienable rights as well?
I’ve never been married.
Again, please explain how there would be “upward mobility”, “hope” and “security” in this society you’re describing. The one where there are no government protections, police and courts are only accessible to those who can afford to pay, and it’s necessary to raise private armies to keep the roving warlords with armed bands at bay.
It is not “imposed”. People in a libertarian society act according to certain understanding of their “rights”. If you try to violate them, you won’t survive long.
I see, you’re an idealist. You think the rich and powerful don’t own you today.
Definitely.
The right to self-protection is. Guns are part of it.
Again, that’s your vision of that society. Not mine. So the premise of your question is wrong.
Can I build a nuke? Just a small one. I promise – No! – pinky promise not to use it against mine and my brethren’s sworn enemies, The Unholy State of Iowa.
In other words, imagine if the American Civil War had nukes.
Right. Accept your understanding of “rights” or die. Not imposed at all. You’re free to chose!
Nirvana fallacy again. I said things are better today, not perfect.
Really? Because the current US government seems to have 100% success at keeping the roving warlords with armed bands at bay. And somehow Libertopia will do better, inspite of the lack of any real disincentive to become a roving warlord with an armed band?
What about nukes, or other WMDs? If I feel they’re necessary for my personal protection, who are you to tell me no?
The societies, past and present, that have come closest to your description of a libertarian society have had very little “upward mobility”, “hope” and “security”. What will make Libertopia different?
Nah. It’s not MY understanding of “rights” that you have to accept or die. It’s that guy’s over there. You know, the one you’re intending to steal from.
Look in the mirror. You’re the one demanding perfection from the libertarian society.
Seriously? Have you been to an inner city lately?
A heavily armed populace not shy about using their weapons to defend themselves is quite a disincentive.
You’re welcome to it. Last I checked, nuclear weapons cost a pretty penny. Where exactly are you getting them?
No, those societies (judging by your cries of “Somalia”) are the closest to your warped understanding of what a libertarian society would be like.
Well, let’s see… Now that enriched uranium and plutonium has been deregulated, me and my friends at MIT would consider it a pet project to make one. Should be fun!
So you’re saying a right can exist even when society does not allow it to be practiced. That means that the Second Amendment would still exist as a right even if the government confiscated all the firearms in the country.
That might be the making of a resolution the the gun issue that would make everyone happy. The pro-gun people would be happy because their Second Amendment rights would be safe and secure and the anti-gun people would be happy because there were no guns around.
“Where there is no patrol car, there is no speed limit.” -Peter Beckmann
Yes sure. Cuz it’s that easy.
It takes billions if not tens/hundreds of $billions to create a nuclear program advanced enough to produce a nuclear weapon. Now imagine a libertarian society. Explain why someone with tens if not hundreds of $billions would spend his money that way. Then explain why that person would either detonate the weapon himself or sell it (for how much? Presumably more than he spent on it, right?) to anyone? A nuclear wasteland is not very conducive to the kind of life that that billionaire is used to.
Your scenario doesn’t make any sense in a libertarian society. You will note that ONLY governments, funded to the brim with taxpayers’ money, develop nuclear weapons today. Make government weak and who will do it?
Definitely.
No, they would not be “safe and secure”. They would be suppressed, violated and trampled upon.
So I could kill anyone who I feel is violating my “rights” based on whatever understanding of “rights” I chose? I thought these were cosmically-granted and inalienable?
I’m not demanding perfection, I’m trying to understand how it could possibly work.
That’s really not what we were talking about, but fair enough. How does Libertopia make this better? Who’s going to pay the police to go in and clean it up? Or do we have to raise an army to go in and impose martial law?
Sounds like a recipe for an extremely violent society.
With all the money I’ll make from my roving armed band.
Ok, if not Somalia, then what? Is there another country in the world today that is closer to Libertopia? And what would it take to transform it into Libertopia? Say I put you in charge of the biggest, baddest roving armed band in Somalia. What’s the agenda? How do you go about remaking society into this paradise of freedom?
I exaggerate to point out the inherent dangers. Regardless of how much it costs to build a weapon, this country is the first and one of the largest nuclear powers on the planet. And that’s just one… one… example. Your blatant disregard for how technology has turned the playing field society plays on completely upside down boggles my mind.
Yes, they are.
Frankly? No, you’re not.
No, sounds like a recipe for a very peaceful society.
Again with the flippant bullshit. You’re saying you’re trying to understand?
You don’t transform Somalia. You transform a developed country.
You exaggerate to the point of absurdity, as I explained.
You keep going back and forth on this. They’re inalienable and unquestionable when you’re rationalizing your beliefs, but they’re optional and up to individual determination when asked if people will be coerced into accepting them.
Yes, I am. I’ve presented several hypotheticals about how these rights would be guaranteed in Libertopia. You’ve utterly failed to answer any of them.
Right, because a society where everyone’s heavily armed and doesn’t hesitate to start shooting at the slightest provocation would be so peaceful.
What’s flippant about that? You asked how I’d raise enough money for my own nukes. I told you how I’d do it.
So only developed countries are capable of being Libertopias? Why is that? If these principles are so universal then why can’t they work anywhere? Are people in undeveloped countries morally deficient somehow?
They are inalienable. You can either recognize them or not. But if you don’t recognize them that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. You refuse to understand that. That’s your problem.
Rights are not “guaranteed”. They are defended - either by you or by someone you hire.
“start shooting at the slightest provocation”. More flippant bullshit.
Yes. That’s why the countries are “undeveloped”.
I understand your view perfectly. you just don’t seem to understand that choosing some arbitrary set of rights and declaring them inalienable isn’t really a defensible position, nor is it a realistic basis for a society to operate on.
Unless someone hires more people to take them away from you, in which case you’re screwed. And don’t start with that “just get a bigger army” nonsense again.
Obviously you don’t know too many gun rights advocates.
Good to know. I guess Libertopia will need a large standing army to protect us from those rampaging hordes of people from undeveloped countries who aren’t sufficiently evolved to understand our inalienable rights.