So you admit that having intellectual property and public roads are separate issues from not living in a post-apocalyptic wasteland? Maybe we should focus on those things then instead of "what if you could buy nukes like you can guns"?

So, your argument is that we need intellectual property laws and public roads or else we'll be living in a post-apocalyptic wasteland? That's a bit of a reach isn't it?

I don't let argumentum ad consequentiams dissuade me from sticking to my principles.

Most can't govern themselves but they can all govern others? No, if few can govern themselves then even fewer can govern others.

You just said that there was no way of knowing he was mentally ill or not. If we knew he was mentally ill then no, he shouldn't be able to buy nukes. It's my position that any adult should be allowed to own nukes as long as they aren't on someone's property that prohibits them, which would likely be the case. Who would want to live in a city or drive on roads where that was just an acceptable everyday thing?


Like? No. I would like it if nobody had nukes. This isn't about my preferences. This is about what people's rights are. 


There's no way all of those people will be able to buy nukes. Like I said, they wouldn't be something you can just buy at Wal-Mart.

He would have been in his right, yes. However, to have access to a nuke, you wouldn't just be able to walk into Wal-Mart and buy one. Are you saying that we shouldn't let anyone have guns because a few people like this guy will use them to murder?

So you're saying the current system sucks? I agree.


Anyone being threatened by the nuke. A mugger points a gun at you, stop him. A killer points a nuke at a city, the entire city stops him. You act like you'll just be able to go to Wal-Mart and pick up a nuke. That's highly unlikely. It will be sold to different groups and they will need to have permission to have nukes if they occupy anyone else's land and they will need to have permission to transport them if they use anyone else's roads.

If someone kills people and is likely to be a continual threat, nobody will want to have him around. He'll be effectively banned for everyone else's private property. If you were a mall owner, road owner, etc. Would you have people like him on your property? No, of course not. If he is likely to use a nuclear bomb to murder, he won't be allowed to have one. If he is likely to use a gun to murder, he won't be allowed to have one.


You don't have to wait for the mugger's bullet to rip through your flesh before you can defend yourself.

The reason why we tolerate the possibility of cell phone rates being indiscriminately raised is the very fact we can switch providers easily. Who in their right mind would buy a house with only a 2 year contract that says nothing about the future increases of road rates? Who in their right mind would build a house with the only service being a road that can have it's price skyrocket at will?

Exploitation is a myth.

When you buy a house, part of the process will be evaluating the access rights that come with the house. If can't get from your house to your workplace without paying a million dollars each trip, you wouldn't buy it. Knowing this, builders wouldn't build houses in those situations, they would either own the nearby roads and give you access rights as part of buying the house to entice you, (much like my subdivision has a pool for the entire neighborhood) or the home builder would have contract to with the road builders. Road builders want people to use the roads so they can make money. They won't make money if they can't get anyone to build houses or open businesses nearby. Home builders want people to buy their homes so they can make money. They won't make money if they can't get anyone to buy their houses.

As for how you pay for road usage, I cannot say. I can only tell you that if it's too inconvenient, someone else will find a better solution and make more money, eventually driving the others out of business. Market forces and competition act to tirelessly weed out incompetence and inefficiency.

Are you saying it's impossible? I'll refute that argument if you wish to make it.

Not really. I'm not saying it's cheap. I'm not saying it's easy. I'm not saying it's likely. I'm saying we should do it.

Show me how we get to non-slavery from slavery then weigh the pros and cons of it. Oddly enough, let's not mention justice at all.

Tragedy of the commons? Get rid of the commons. Make everything privately owned. Problem solved.

Which businesses will make more money, those that make doing business with them hell or those that figure out a way to make everything as simple as possible? Competition will make sure we don't have that kind of hell. Look at the current system. Do you actually know every law and every regulation? No, that's why we have lawyers. It's hard to see how the current system is any better than the unlikely worst case scenario you propose.

Who is in charge of deciding if a mugger is using his knife to rob your or is using it to whittle a piece of wood?

It's not about weapon. It's about the damage dealt. If you trespass on my property, I can't kill you just for that. If you pick my pocket, I can't kill you just for that. If you don't understand libertarian views then how can you be so opposed to them?

Self-defense is defense from an immediate threat of physical violence in proportion to the threat and directly targeted at the person or persons making the threat.
                                                                                                    
                                                                                                in proportion

                                                                                        in proportion

                                                                               in proportion

                                                                    in proportion