i make an URGENT call upon all men of the earth, in order to, BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE, eliminate the evils of monopolized violence (id est, the state), to unilaterally, if not mutually,

I respond to your URGENT call with a slightly less urgent call to MAKE SENSE. Afterwards I will determine if your original call is actionable.

Have a nice day.

the american state has 10,000 nuclear weapons!

For once I agree with you. The sensibility of everyone everywhere agreeing to NOT blowing eachother up would be brilliant. But that will never happen. I foresee that my life will not end before a world catastrophe brought on by nukes.

I, for one, can't wait for the inevitable nuclear apocalypse. We'll get cool cars and guns and zombies. It'll be awesome.

Mutually assured destruction.

No one is launching any "nukes" any time soon.

What the ****?
Wait.. American State?
Which state?

in other words we need to start selling nukes @ walmart

it is the only wayD: D: D: D: D:

Eff. This. Rallying. Cry. You suck Mystic.

i recently realized that the doctrine of 'mutually assured descruction' and the 'anti-ballistic missile' treaty constituted a conspiracy by the offense contractors

is offense the best defense, or is defense the best offense? Well, only one of the two doctrines empowers our enemy, the state, by centralizing power and locking down the world

While I certainly see motivation behind... "Baning the Bomb", I do not see it as an effective course of action to achieving what I believe to be you expressed goals. The knowledge necessary build a destructive nuclear device has been previously dispersed into the global consciousness, and I fear that no amount of effort dedicated to the disarming of current destructive nuclear devices coupled with effort dedicated to the prevention of construction of additional destructive nuclear devices would be sufficient to ensure their complete removal from the global stage.

Instead, I propose an effort to ensure that those individuals capable of making use of destructive nuclear devices are of demonstratively strong moral and ethical fiber and can be counted upon to always choose a path of action keeping with the best interests of humanity in general. Thus, I propose a diversion of effort from "Baning the Bomb" to an effort to ensure the moral credentials of all political and military leaders for all nations of the world, a redoubling of ethical standards within the scientific community, the establishment of protocols for improved education worldwide, and efforts to drastically increase assimilation into a global mindset.

... look up the word "state" TE. If you already know what it means and you were trying to be funny: Stop.

In addition to the post above (first post by West Wind), the call would need to be more effective in order to actually accomplish anything, posting something better meant for large masses on a 'small' internet forum(when compairing the amount of members to the rest of the world population) will probably not get anything done in the long run. On the contrary to what you may think, Massassian population does not equal even half the world population.

In short, irrational paranoia aside, the affectiveness of the message is almost null. Yes, there are thousands of nuclear weapons out there, but only a few actually **** themselves, scream, and hide under the bed because of it.

i make an URGENT call upon all men of the earth, in order to, BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE, stop being stupid *****es

Also I'm not insulting Mystic. I'm just saying, if we get rid of the bomb we will just jack eachother up other ways.

The only path is that of enlightenment. All you need is love, dawg.

but my dream of living in an anarcho-capitalist community is incompatible with the existance of nuclear arms! Nuclear arms necessitate central power to prevent utter destruction ensuing from massive, unilateral violence. Is cental power the best we can hope for then? Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. You say, west wind, that the keepers of such evil devices must be of high moral fiber. If that is the case, then why aren't they pouring resources to the end of mutual disarment? Where are they pouring their resources? Does the state really 'have' resources?

why did the states agree to forgo mutual missle defense in favor of mutual missle offense? (Cold) war is the health of the state (and it's contractors)

there is today a global terror in fear of utter destruction that saps the will from our bodies and makes us submissive to the whims of the state and it's blood-sucking socialist cadre. When was the last time that violent defense was considered an instrument of freedom? You say that fear of nuclear destruction is peace-making. I say that fear of nuclear destruction is terrorism and is much worse

I did not say that our leaders were of high moral fiber, but that they should be, and we should take all reasonable effort to ensure they are.

As for your desired anarcho-capitalistic community, I would argue that according to many theorists and proposed theories of social contract, the nature of knowledge without enlightenment is incompatible with such a social system. And that even should the existence of destructive nuclear devices be removed, there will still remain the necessity for centralized authority of some extent.

regardless of the security of my humble anarchic community or it's degree of actual peace and freedom, unless you believe in one world government, you cannot believe that central power is in itself a purely 'good thing', and i believe that the existance of nuclear arms is indeed a "centralizer" of power (and it is quite naive to think that more central power will lead to anything more than more abuse of natural rights. Intellectual, public discourse and democracy will only trick you into thinking you've solved the problem of central power, when all you've done is caused it's instruments of evil to act simply in more insidious ways)

How does only one of those two doctrines empower the state?

I must've missed it when the US threatened other countries with nuclear bombardment if they didn't submit to a solitary world government..

Please never stop posting Mystic, it's awesome.

I heart this sentiment!


(We're a frakking violent race... we are going to attempt to destroy each other with whatever we can get our hands on... Just stock up on some chainsaws and sit back and enjoy the ride.)

wielding the apparatus to shoot down a missle never did anybody harm (save upsetting the balance of power, a case in which there EXISTS a heavy apparatus of power), but to lay claim to the sole ability to protect a country by deterring foreign attack by assuring mutual destruction is to hold the people hostage to the keeper's authority in all matters. Who would dare revolt against the central, trusted holder of nuclear arms? In such a revolt, not only would the power vacuum feature nuclear proliferation, but would also introduce a power imbalance stemming originally from the escalation of arms perpetrated by the offense contractors. In the mean time, the subjects are reduced to mere vassels to be blood-sucked (by the socialist cadre of insidious political looters, id est corporate fascist and electoral whores)

precisely. And the higher the stakes, the more terrified folks become of actual conflict. My argument is that if we lower the stakes, we will lower terror, and reduce blood-sucking by increasing the chance of violent resistance

My thoughts:

We got nukes, there is no way you will ever make both sides give them up. Only one solution: one world government working on the same interests, solving problems such as crime, sickness, poverty as well as exploring space and the wonders of our world. What a dream.

well, the leaders would never make this explicit policy for fear of detrimental damage to public opinion. But actually, the american state is able to do this without nuclear power even... not without potentially (hopefully) bleeding to death though. But perhaps (hopefully not) it can establish dollar hegemony by securing oil and drug routes in order to further monetize debt it creates from nothing by means of the illegal federal reserve for needed military expense to maintain it's imperial grip without destroying the dollar?

in other words, endless looting by an even larger den of political whores and corporate fascists? Believe me, what you've described is their DREAM. Have you been watching too much ted turner captain planet propaganda?

not possible with nuclear arms (**** you, lincoln)

heres the problem. the human race is by nature prone to agression. if you need evidence of that... just look at our entire damn history as a species. if everyone agreed to disarm and destroy the technology for all nuclear weapons, then you know what it would probably work. however if just one country decides they want to keep their nukes, the whole "no nukes" bit is pointless.

Done.

oh, there's no doubt that mutual disarment is infinitely better than unilateral, though i argue that even unilateral is desirable. The existance and acceptable prosperity of unarmed countries proves this

thank you for massassi's unilateral disarment, wolfy! One down, how many to go?

No bombs?

Of any sort?

How am I to have any fun?

And what will girls call me? Da guided rocket propelled grenade?

did america loot japan after it nuked it? Did it continue to nuke the japanese out of existance? Did kings tax their subjects out of existance? Of course not, as the desctruction of imperial vassels bears no fruit. Hans hoppe once spoke of a swedish man, regarding the question of invasion, who argued that sweden's policy be, "okay, fine. We surrender". We surrender. Then what? Nuke and loot the whole place just for fun? Or allow capital structure to flourish so as to tax it, thus procuring greater wealth?

oh no, bombs operating by means of mere chemical explosions are hardly my concern. It is the nuclear icbm the concerns me... (or any serious nuclear fission for that matter)

also, almost every community in every country has some form of centralized government. from countries like the US and Britain that have massive governments all the way down to tribes in Africa, and even as far down as a single family. central is not inherently a bad thing. it is easily corruptible, but not always terrible like you seem to be suggesting. a central gov should be in place to serve the people and ideally should be kept in check BY the people. and as a side note anarchy never works. organized and purposeful revolution can make changes but anarchy is just a form of entropy and they both have the same end result.

as an natural law ethics individualist, i say it is the essence of a bad thing, unless it is volantary



what people? The ones over there that want to legitemize the theft of my property on their behalf by means of the state? Kept in check by the people indeed... we only have to consider WHICH people! I assure you they won't include everybody



anarchy works today, unless you are suggesting we have in place one world government



whoa, whoa, whoa... i am not your black-flag leftist revolutionary. (My god yes, power vacuums are horrible.) Black market natural rights defending capitalist is more like it. Let them take the first shot at me at ruby ridge. Maybe after a while their slaughter will illegitimize their power and the soliders will ignore their officers, as with what happened at the soviet union's end

You can't hug your children with nuclear arms.