Thread: We need hammer control NOW!!!

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Then, who should the body of authority with a rule against briefcase nukes be? What type of rule would you like, if not a government rule? Wouldn't the body with a rule against briefcase nukes qualify as a government?

It doesn't matter to me what kind of system it is, as long as it does it effectively. If it's a private "Anti-Nuclear Weapons Corp" institution, great. If it's the US government, fine. What I do know is that we only have one of those available to us right now, so immediately arguing for "ANW Corp" seems irrelevant.

What do you think of gun control and hammer control?

Hammer control is absurd, gun control is often ineffective and unethical.

I dig this guy's videos on gun control:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJf3aoR7MTo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh90sEYltV8

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

It doesn't matter to me what kind of system it is, as long as it does it effectively. If it's a private "Anti-Nuclear Weapons Corp" institution, great. If it's the US government, fine. What I do know is that we only have one of those available to us right now, so immediately arguing for "ANW Corp" seems irrelevant.

You just straight up admitted that you are not really an anarchist. I think we can move on now.


"Why Switzerland Has The Lowest Crime Rate In The World" Liberty Crier

http://libertycrier.com/why-switzerl...-in-the-world/

"The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols."

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You just straight up admitted that you are not really an anarchist. I think we can move on now.

Please read my posts in the context of the point I was trying to get across. I very clearly previously said:

I see no reason why the state MUST exist to maintain a maximally free society[.]

But I am not certain in that. I very clearly express my uncertainty, as one should, and reiterate my position of being pro-liberty before anti-state.

If one must exist to maintain that freedom, then I will obviously change my mind and dump anarchism wholesale.

I think my posts are being written clearly so if you could spend a little more time trying to understand what I'm saying, this discussion will go more smoothly. I'd rather not have to repeat myself because you took a single snippet of my post and took it for the whole thing.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

If it's a private "Anti-Nuclear Weapons Corp" institution, great. If it's the US government, fine. What I do know is that we only have one of those available to us right now, so immediately arguing for "ANW Corp" seems irrelevant.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I see no reason why the state MUST exist to maintain a maximally free society.

But I am not certain in that.

Then you are not an anarchist.

https://www.google.com/#q=anarchist+definition&safe=off

an·ar·chist
ˈanərkist/
noun
noun: anarchist; plural noun: anarchists

1.
a person who believes in or tries to bring about anarchy.

Anarchy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

an·ar·chy

1
a : absence of government