I like to think of it as a possible dynamic economic idea based on people's most primal drivers that would be fun to watch from the outside. I don't really associate good or bad connotations to it.

As you said when you came in, where we are now is the natural result of how people want things to be. I believe thatin a libertarian society people feel the same about nukes as they do now, and voluntarily will not want to have nukes around. The reasons range from nukes being dangerous and difficult to control, to them being a major waste of money with plenty of cheaper and safer alternatives readilly available. Even powerful governments are abandoning nukes and massive armies for strategic mobile units that can move in quick and strike small specific targets. Future isn't nukes, it's drones.

You forgot the part about where those people will also voluntarily and legally be able to resist that violence with their own violence. Actually, scratch that. You're the ones who keep bringing that up. Annoying that no one bothers to consider that violence isn't the only way to enforce voluntary "agreed upon" laws.

Sorry, I don't either. I see a lot of regulation as a result of things that eventually broke and that people believed needed to be fixed, not just random ideas people with hunger for power pulled out of their rear.
Perhaps the diference is the fundamental philosophy on which the laws and society are built? Such as "everyone is forced to do what the majority believed everyone should do" v.s. "I won't screw with you, and likewise won't rely on you helping me?"
I am not against the idea of a libertarian nation forming as an experiment in self-governance, but not sure if i would be able to live there.

So, wait, now the reason everyone doesn't have nukes is because it is ridiculously difficult and expensive to manufacture one? I thought the only reason was regulation, and without it anyone would be able to make and sell one?
I'm seriously confused about your claims here. First you say a country without regulations will end up with everyone having nukes. Then you say international regulations will keep even countries without regulations from obtaining them. Then you say that that international regulation is the only thing keeping random people from getting nukes. Now you're saying that getting a nuke requires very specialized and rare knowledge and skills.
It's like every time you come to an impase, you move the limits back a bit. Can you please be consistent?

P.S. if my questions seem really stupid, it may be because I am at times trying to play devil's advocate and am asking you obvious and stupid questions which end up leading you to rather obvious and contradictory answers. See paragraph above.

Glad you let me know that in the country where you live, I can juggle stuff like nitroglycerin or other dangerous explosives or materials six inches away from you, and you can't do anything about it. I'll make sure to stay far away from where you live.

Aka, publicly available on the internet.


Either a country without regulations will have a major nuke ownership problem, or a country without regulations will still not have nukes due to outside international regulations and citizens of the country itself will not wanting random people owning nukes. So, either the whole nuke thing was a ridiculous straw man, or the whole nuke thing was a non-issue. Which is it?

Current global international businesses that deal with outsourcing, offshoring, and cloud storage and services, where employees and customers are no longer tied to a specific geographic region, a single country's laws and regulations no longer apply, and contracts between businesses, suppliers, and customers have to depend on trust and mutual benefit, are the infancy stage of that universe.

Isn't it pretty easy to obtain nukes if you live in an unregulated country? I mean things like global travel, hazmat suits, hazmat sensors, and specialized storage equipment are dirt cheap, aren't they? You guys said if I lived somewhere where there is no regulation, like, say, in Sealand, it would be easy for everyone to have nukes. Is it or isn't it?

Argument going on here is government with legal regulation versus libertarian free-market anarchy with voluntary community-imposed regulation. I think you and I are in agreement that government regulation will not stop all instances of "bad," and libertarian organizations (companies, communities) would not sell nukes to random people or use them for same reasons that corrupt unregulated dictators won't.

I mine but hold long term. I have no reason to sell until I either go on an expensive trip, or need to retire, since I can easilly cover my mining costs with my regular income.
When I do sell, i admit I don't bother waiting for a high price, since when I sell it usually means I need the money now.

About a grand a month into Bitcoin, a few grand a month into stocks. Plus still mining. Keeping my investments split.

Sorry, looked it up on Wikipedia. Manufacturing doesn't look that difficult. Go to any Middle Eastern or African country without a strong government and you'll likely be able to make it without a hastle. Doesn't look like there are international regulations for it, either, and a large compressed tank of liquid flourine gas with an attached explosive can be one hell of a deterrent. Again, assuming you survive. I am willing to bet if you don't know what you are doing, even if you buy plutonium and try to build a bomb on the cheap, you won't survive either.
bit, of course, according to you guys, for some reason nukes will be mass produced on assembly lines and everyone will be able to buy one. For the life of me I have no idea why anyone would want that, either citizens or manufacturing companies.

Either you are saying that current government regulations won't stop private citizens from owning nukes anyway, or you are describing how things will likely work in a libertarian country, too. Likely both.

So, just to double-check, there is international regulation, and thus there is also regulation in Korea, Iran, Somalia, and Saudi Arabia? And if there isn't why wouldn't this "international regulation" apply to libertville?

You think the cost of the item is determined solely by the cost of materials? OK, fine. Forget a nuke. Go buy some flourine gas. It's not heavily regulated, is used in production of PVC, plastics, and fabrics, is rather abundant, and is fairly cheap and easy to make. Should be no problem for anyone with money! Granted it will also kill you before you hit the ground, or if you're not lucky, will disolve you from the inside while you're laying there, and is extremely difficult to store and safely transport. But hey, it's not rare or highly illegal, there's PLENTY of it, and if used correctly can be just as effectiveas a small nuke at wiping out a small town if used in large enough quantities, such as in a tanker truck (assuming you can drive it to your target before whatever tiny amount that leaks out kills you), so obviously anyone can afford it.
Why am I having to tell you that mining and obtaining uranium is cheap, but concentrating, handling, tooling, and storing it without irradiating everything around you or accidentally setting it off is stupid expensive?

Did you accidentally stumble onto a London furry con? That's one thing furs definitely have an advantage over treckie, star wars, and anime fandoms/conventions: lots of booze, sex, and parties

I keep wanting to make a point of just ignoring and not replying to him, but keep forgetting to check the name of the person I'm hitting reply to.

Is there regulation in Korea? Iran? Somalia? Saudi Arabia? Hell, many of those countries will pey you to build one for them.question is money and difficulty, and threat of pissing everyone else off. This won't somehow be different in libertyville.