Ancap thread

>>130478815
there are none.

it's called the NAP for a reason: the Nuclear Accumulation Principle.

>>130479158
What a newfag.
The NAP stands for new aggression principle

>>130479724
Actually its Nuke Abuse Protocols

>>130479724

Why are you purposely running a disinfo campaign against the Nigger Annihilation Protocol?

>>130479972
>>130479158
Niggers Aren't People

>>130478815

They are impossible to use without harming the innocent. They, therefore, violate the NAP.

/thread

>>130480505
Your own land that is large enough to contain it

Test sites are a thing

>>130480505
All I hear is more mcNukes flying.

>>130480684
>>130480705

They're an implied threat. Your test site doesn't stop you from endangering innocent lives by its mere existence. Guns can be contained. McNukes can't, especially if they fall into the wrong hands.

>muh impenetrable property line

>>130478815
Radiation fallout violates the NAP.

>>130481298
it still doesn't provide a reason why you can't own a nuke.

Nuclear weapons have no recreational value; the only reason to own one is the implied threat of devastating military force.

>>130481298
(((((((contained)))))))))))

you can't "contain" anything that can kill you when you don't expect it

>>130481569
The threat is commies.

>>130481456

Yes, it does.

See also
>>130481569
This.

>>130481992

Therefore an excellent argument to not have mcnukes.

>>130481569
You don't choose what has recreational value

>>130482041
How does owning something violate the NAP?

>>130482146
A gun to the back of your head can kill you when you don't expect it

containment isn't an argument against owning weapons

>>130482006

>implying that the term "communism" isn't an anti-concept

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QsbvE_0Kpc

>>130482305

When that something threatens innocent people by its existence.

>>130478815
Nuclear weapons increase the background radiation and damage the quality of precision and hardned steel. Since thousands of atomic weapons have been detonated on Earth, Oxygen has become partly irradiated and is a critical component in production of steel. This means that there is currently now way to reproduce the strong steels that we used to have.

We go to all the effort to raise sunken ships that have steel armor from before the nukes in order to produce low background radiation steel.

It's super expensive but it's required for things like sensitive medical equipment, scientific sensors and microscopes, equipment that must function long term in space, lots of high reliability military technical systems.

This trend could continue until water and air is so contaminated that most of the planet would die. Nuclear bombs cannot be recreational. They are planet destroying.

>>130482416
you can say this about every weapon

>>130482315

A gun also isn't always pointed at the back of my head by its sitting in someone's gun rack.

A mcnuke has an effective radius and fallout in a far wider area that the gun on the rack.

>>130482503

No, you can't. An empty gun on a rack poses no threat.

>>130482498
>but it's required for things like sensitive medical equipment, scientific sensors and microscopes, equipment that must function long term in space, lots of high reliability military technical systems.


I'm not obligated to care about these things, I should have the right to detonate nukes in my own land

>>130482416
Guns are used as a threat to deter people from attacking a gun owner; there's no difference between that and a nuke.

>>130482776

You can't keep the radiation in your own land.

>>130482842
>Guns are used as a threat to deter people from attacking a gun owner

And yet an empty gun on a rack is useless until someone gets it off the rack and loads it.

>>130482963
So making it harder for someone to create steel is now violation of the NAP?

>>130482982
A nuke is useless unless it's armed too buddy.

>>130482982
A nuke is useless until you arm the warhead and prime it for launch

>>130483127

Proportionality, nigger. Proportionality...

Nobody is saying that you can't safely keep some radioactive material in certain areas and it be safe. However, with a mcnuke, you're talking about a weapon of mass destruction. It will harm innocent people with its use and should be banned.

>>130483188
>A nuke is useless unless it's armed too buddy.

Bullshit. A nuke has radioactive material inside of it. Just because it may lack a trigger doesn't make it any less dangerous.

>>130483218
>A nuke is useless until you arm the warhead and prime it for launch

see

>>130483502

>>130478815
Fall out

>>130482982
And yet a nuke is useless until somebody detonates it.

>>130483598
>And yet a nuke is useless until somebody detonates it.

Again, bullshit. They must be constantly maintained in order to keep from becoming unstable. Even that is no guarantee.

>>130478815
Lol, strange thread but o.k.
My first thought is why would you want one?

>>130478815
I'll sell you one for 20 scalps

>>130483363
Should tanks also be banned? What about regular missiles?

Enforcing me not to own a nuke that I wouldn't harm anyone with is a violation of the NAP. Prepare to face the wrath of my private army.

>>130478815
Difficult to ensure that only rational actors have access to them. MAD is based on the concept that all rational actors are armed with nukes and because they are rational they will never initiate nuclear war. If Mahmud Alah Muhammed Durka Ali al Ibn Jihad get's a private stockpile of nuclear weapons and becomes offended at a twitter post then you've suddenly got a potential failure of MAD on your hands because he is not a rational actor and doesn't necessarily value his own life, therefor he might not have any qualms about using his McNuke on infidels even if it means a retaliatory strike will certainly kill him.

>>130483571
>Radioactive material lol dude it like instagibs you!!
put back the red and red antifa, we both know it's you.

Let me explain it you little shitwaffle nigger:
1. It has a MINIMUM amount of radioactive material.
2. It is NOT necessary should you find another way of splitting and atom that doesn't require an uranium source.
3. It's more dangerous to you,being in proximity to it than it is to anyone, as such and since it is of a scarce nature it's better to have safely sealed until it's ready to use.
4. It being naturally poisonous it's similar to having a dead animal or any other vector of infection, should we enforce also people to wash themselves?

>>130484111
>Should tanks also be banned?

Essentially no

>What about regular missiles?

Most likely no, but they require great care not to pose a threat. Something so big that it could do the same damage as an atom bomb would fall into the "yes" category.

>Enforcing me not to own a nuke that I wouldn't harm anyone with

Threats alone are harm enough. It wouldn't be a violation of the NAP to stop you; quite the contrary. ;)

>>130484392
That's a good argument for why I should be able to own nukes for self defense.

>>130484431
But other bombs don't have radiation, your argument against nukes was the radiation

Why can't I own a MOAB for recreational use?

>>130484586
I agree in principle but I'm not convinced it's plausible in practice.

>>130484418
>should we enforce also people to wash themselves?

Cool conflation, bro.

Your mouth is writing checks that your ass can't cash. You can't *guarantee* any of this. We can always come up with outrageous hypotheticals where we could safely keep a mcnuke, but here on Earth the likelihood of having such a scenario borders on the absurd.

>>130484754
>But other bombs don't have radiation

My argument was that it inevitably harms innocent people and is thereby a NAP violation. Remember, threats are NAP violations.

>>130484891
Plausible no, possible yes

>>130485117
Why inevitably? I'm not gonna throw my nukes or MOABs on any innocents

>>130484586
Using it would be retarded, because fallout. Also, what self defense does it have besides suicide bombing?

>>130485252

Again, wherever it sits, it's a threat to those nearest to it.

File: 134.jpg (25KB, 535x300px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 535x300px

>>130485002
If Pakistan can own a nuke, why can't I?

>>130485340
Just like a loaded gun, or tank, or helicopter, or a car.

File: meow_by_kr0npr1nz-d95ha5c.jpg (512KB, 900x900px)

512KB, 900x900px

could damage the loli slaves

>>130485354

Nigger, you're an anarchist, you should know this.

File: 1408757898222.jpg (99KB, 692x730px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 692x730px

>>130481569
My Pepsi Presents Armed Mercenaries taking out 2,000 McMercs has plenty of recreational value.

>>130485456
I'm a more responsible country than Pakistan

Well considering Radioactive fallout is a thing it's probably not the best idea to give every Tom, Dick and Harry who can afford it, a nuclear bomb.

>>130485409

No, but it's illegal to point a loaded gun or tank at the innocent. It's also illegal to throw people from helicopters or hit them with your car. Same principle at play, but we're talking about a bomb, which fucks up people in all directions, unlike your stupid, conflationary examples.

>>130485552
>responsible country

You're a state now? Maybe you should change your flag.

>>130485648
You point your car at innocents whenever you drive it

>>130485937
>You point your car at innocents whenever you drive it

The last time I checked, I point my car down the road I'm driving on. I keep a safe distance and stop at appropriate intersections. Besides, jaywalking is also a thing. So, please stahp. It's getting pathetic.

>>130478815
Operation plowshare

>>130486124
At any point you can keep going instead of stopping when someone is crossing the road.

I'm not throwing my nukes around by just owning them.

>>130486323

Dude, you're beat. You asked for it. Know when you've been outdone and bow out gracefully.

>Enforcing me not to own a nuke that I wouldn't harm anyone with

>I'm not throwing my nukes around by just owning them.

Again, if I were to do this, it would be vehicular manslaughter. If my car blew up in my driveway for some reason, it's highly unlikely to kill my neighbors, so it doesn't pose a significant threat.

>>130486848
>At any point you can keep going instead of stopping when someone is crossing the road.

File: I will make it legal.png (785KB, 1440x900px) Image search: [Google]

785KB, 1440x900px

>>130485648
>It's illegal to throw communists from helicopters.
Communism is a violation of the NAP.

>>130486848
You're posing a threat by having the car on the road with innocents in front of you.

>>130486919
>Communism is a violation of the NAP.

lol the ideal of communism is the same end that we want. It's the means we're against. Market anarchism is the better means to what is called communism.

>>130487018
>You're posing a threat by having the car on the road with innocents in front of you.

No, you're not when you drive appropriately. If you drive like an asshole, then maybe your argument will have some weight, but it doesn't rise to the danger of outlawing all vehicles.

It's the same thing with owning guns. If i point it at innocent people, I deserve to get shot. If I'm using it as intended, then they're fine. It's just not possible to do that with mcnukes.

>>130487383
No one KNOWS that you're not just going to drive over them because you go crazy or murderous, they trust you not to because its very unlikely, but it's totally in your ability to kill people whenever you drive your car.

>>130481298
>implied threat
>in a philosophical system where you cant enforce threats

File: 1251847288313.jpg (15KB, 241x239px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 241x239px

>>130478815

As an actual capitalist I hate this anarcho-capitalist bullshit meme trend because it muddles and confuses people's perceptions of what capitalism actually is even more so. By making all these ridiculous rationalizations of using force or enslaving people or doing everything actual capitalism stands against and eradicates. Unsolving the problems capitalism solves through redundant thought exercises meant to be as ridiculous as possible to smear actual rational thought.

All just for shits and giggles and the creation of meme-arguments. Anarcho-capitalism is just anarchy. It has nothing to do with capitalism.

>>130487576

Going full autist, are we? For starters, we're all on the same public property when we're driving. While there is no guarantee that some nut will road rage on me, it's also not strictly yours or my property in which to dictate the terms of how it is used. Over all, we have rules in place that we all generally understand and violations of those are what count as rights violations in these occasions. Since you need the obvious pointed out to you, there it is.

What you're talking about is making your neighbors trust you with your threat to THEIR property and persons without them having a say in the matter. That's totally fucked and why nobody likes ancaps.

>>130487774
>>in a philosophical system where you cant enforce threats

it is permissible in libertarianism to curtail threats of aggression with defensive force. We're not pacifists.

>>130488073
Person A driving on road
Person B crossing road

Person B has no guarantee A isn't going to run them over, even if that would result in person A going to prison for life or being executed

Same deal with nukes

>>130487866
>I hate this anarcho-capitalist bullshit meme trend because it muddles and confuses people's perceptions of what capitalism actually is even more so. By making all these ridiculous rationalizations of using force or enslaving people or doing everything actual capitalism stands against and eradicates. Unsolving the problems capitalism solves through redundant thought exercises meant to be as ridiculous as possible to smear actual rational thought.

This. I'm so tired of ancaps fucking up freedom when they're holding the mantle. Grow the fuck up.

>>130480684
and wind is another thing. Do you have any idea how far the radioactive dust from a nuclear blast can go? You've just violated the NAP over a thousand times, but that's okay because your neighbors will just launch 500 of their McNukes, putting enough ash in the atmosphere to blot out the sun to destroy your coca and opium plant farm.

>>130488276
>Person A driving on road
>Person B crossing road
>Person B has no guarantee A isn't going to run them over, even if that would result in person A going to prison for life or being executed
>Same deal with nukes

No, the fuck it's not. Person A has to be hitting the gas *when he should be stopped* to t-bone person B. That's wrong.

Your mcnuke case is only the same as Person A, when person A INTENTIONALLY NEVER STOPS and runs through every intersection there is. The threat is always constant. THAT is the difference. Obviously that would be illegal to do and person A would most likely lose his license to drive, hence being analogous to the outlawing of mcnukes, or more appropriately, outlawing of individuals owning mcnukes.

Your modus ponens is my modus tollens.

>>130488883
Having a nuke isn't the same as using it

You HAVE a car that you DRIVE in front of someone, it's up to you whether or not you kill them

SAME with a NUKE

There can be no "argument" against recreational nukes in ancapistan. If i can afford one, and want one, it's noones business if I get one. That's literally all there is to it. If someone sticks their nose into my recreational nuke stockpile they are violating the NAP

>>130489104
>Having a nuke isn't the same as using it

The fuck it isn't. The whole point for having nukes is to threaten everyone with the fact that you have it and that it can be used at any time to kill a bunch of people. Why do you think there was a nuclear arms race? Ever heard of mutually assured destruction? Have they ever USED any of these weapons on each other? No, they have them to threaten the other in the instance one is used. That is HOW they are USED. Pull your head out of your ass, please.

File: 1533717-529050617205691-7989258059665715815-n-1162005.jpg (75KB, 960x601px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 960x601px

>>130488372

But what is capitalism but imposing an arbitrary value on eternal perceptions in the minds of others and compelling them to give you more of themselves in your reality? Memes incarnate.

>go to the Turkish baths and sweat out your indignation one of mine

>>130489319

lurk moar

File: _MG_7851.jpg (191KB, 1600x1051px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 1600x1051px

>>130489424

*external perceptions, autocorrect.

>>130489359
>The whole point for having nukes is to threaten everyone with the fact that you have it and that it can be used at any time to kill a bunch of people

Can you please remove this flag? You're false-flagging.

I can say the same about anything that can be used to kill people.

I want to own nukes to blow them up in my land and look at the explosions.

>>130489104

Unless the nuke is completely disarmed it still can pose a threat to everyone nearby. It's a literal bomb. The car doesn't pose much of a threat unless it's turned on or if it's rolling down a hill.

ummm mutually assured destruction and nuclear winter to name a few...

>>130489424

>But what is capitalism

See

>>130482333

Austrians define it as the free market, but that's not how everyone else uses it. "Anarcho-capitalism" is bullshit terminology. Use "Market anarchism" instead.

>>130489562
A car is a 1000 pound lethal projectile that can be manually steered.

>>130489652

And the nuke is a weapon capable of wiping out entire cities. You're comparing apples and oranges here.

>>130489494
>Can you please remove this flag? You're false-flagging.

No, the fuck, I'm not. Read moar Rothbard, nigger.

>I can say the same about anything that can be used to kill people.

No, you can't. Lurk moar.

>I want to own nukes to blow them up in my land and look at the explosions.

You're putting your neighbors at risk. They're innocent people, therefore, you're violating the NAP. Fuck you.

>>130489598
>Mutually assured destruction
That's literally an argument FOR nukes, and the one thing keeping countries from actually using them

>>130489494
R E C R E A T I O N A L B A N T E R

>>130489839

You're wrong kiddo, now get into the chopper we're late.

>>130488372

At least someone else gets me here. A weak argument for a good thing amounts to a counter-argument in terms of success it has convincing others.

>>130489424

Capitalism is freedom. That's not arbitrary. You're either free or you're not.

>compelling them to give you more of themselves in your reality? Memes incarnate.

Yeah it's called a harmonization of self-interest. I don't get what it is with you humans and how you want the other humans to just give you things and expect to never give them anything in return. How you don't get the concept of "mutually beneficial" to the point of self-destructive-sabotage.

>>130490624
>That's literally an argument FOR nukes

You're missing the point. He was saying that having alone isn't a use. I used MAD to show that having alone IS a use.

>>130491078
U wot

>>130490930
>I don't get what it is with you humans and how you want the other humans

Are you an extra-terrestrial, reptilian, or an otherkin?

File: tumblr_omy9c7CfMX1w8tr1to1_500.jpg (23KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 480x640px

>>130490930

The application of capitalism is most definitely arbitrary. The very fact it is based on arbitration makes it a tool for the free. You give them something in return from your reality or in their paradigm, which can be mutually beneficial, but not necessarily all the time.

why is there never any actual fucking discussion in these threads

>>130492098

uh, lurk moar?

What has not been covered to your liking?

>>130492098

Because the people don't even know what they're talking about and seek to just piss other people off and jerk off to that reaction. That's all of /pol/.

On your property it's fine, just don't hurt others.

File: acb.jpg (39KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 640x640px

>this thread

File: 1487640500290.png (204KB, 500x543px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 500x543px

>>130492650

File: 1494459186357.png (273KB, 793x794px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 793x794px

>>130478815
possessing a nuke does violate the NAP. It's like pointing a gun at everybody in a room. It's within reason to assume it as an act of aggression.

It only works if everybody agrees for it it to be in the room.

File: 1470694935095.jpg (42KB, 456x526px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 456x526px

>>130492686
will you speds grow up?

File: 1478053022193 (1).jpg (276KB, 1000x719px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 1000x719px

>>130492736
this triggers the anfag

File: 1487648071009.png (237KB, 576x572px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 576x572px

>>130492795

File: dreamoftheendlessleathercoat.jpg (71KB, 674x570px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 674x570px

>>130491299

I just like using that term because I feel like everyone's a human first and human's meme-version of itself second. The human pretends to behave in one way for the meme-version it believes itself is and actually in reality behaves differently. So certain behaviors aren't a liberal, conservative, capitalist, social thing... it's a HUMAN thing. No matter what they declare they believe in they follow this or that behavior pattern.

I'm ranting.

This is just a personal thing for me. I feel detached obviously.

>there are people posting in this thread who are unironically ancap

File: 1466455814887.jpg (1MB, 1751x1648px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1751x1648px

>>130493233

>>130478815
>Give me a good argument against recreational nuclear bombs.

Too expensive. Poor bang to buck ratio. Much cheaper to just get a few thousand tons of TNT.

File: 1496678983553.jpg (32KB, 480x529px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 480x529px

>>130493062
>I feel detached obviously.

Right on. Though it doesn't have to be that way. There's always /pol/.

>>130493233
>unironically ancap

Yeah, the ironic retards (shills) shit all over a perfectly good ideology and turn it into an indefensible memefest.

>>130492795
Why are those McSoldiers fighting outdated farm eq...IS THAT A FUCKING ROAD?!

>>130482498
But what if the radiation enters someones private property, thus violating the NAP?

>>130478815
They would ruin our chances of growing chronic buds

>>130488276
>roads

I'm sorry I'm going to have to ask you to change your argument.

>>130493987
>selling a product to protest capitalism
Pardon me?

>>130495978
>>Pardon me?
>antifa

>>130495812
>>roads
>I'm sorry I'm going to have to ask you to change your argument.

Why? Public property is possible in market anarchism.

http://www.freenation.org/a/f53l1.html

NAP = NAZIS AND PEDOS