/liberty/ - Liberty

Only if you use it on the poor.

Of course.

You just have to afford either…

1) The billions to research and produce one

or 2) Whatever the asking price is on the red market (probably also billions) along with finding someone willing to sell one in the first place.

You also have to deal with the public ridicule of owning one, businesses denying you service when they find out you're trying to purchase one, all the property damages if you ever decide to be a retard and use it, and any threats to your life from simple ownership/attempted of a nuke.

So while "technically" you could own one, you wouldn't have anywhere to use it, if you tried to buy it there would be huge blowback, and you'd have to find a method to get extremely rich in the free market in the first place since no one is going to support your dream of buying a nuclear weapon.

It's like when people ask me

>"Hey, can I buy one of them there Abrams tanks on the free market?"

And I have to explain to them that while they could, they have to pay for the property damages it causes, not to mention it costs hundreds of thousands to keep a single Abrams tank in good condition every year, so you'd just be wasting your time and money purchasing one unless you were a tank enthusiast.

>>15821

>"Capitalists want to exploit the poor for cheap labor!"

>"Capitalists want to kill the poor!"

Choose one. Actually, choose neither.

>>15827

So if I got a small one, let's say, and I blew it up on my own land, that'd be fine, right?

Also, anyone asking about an Abrams, tell them you can already own a fully operational tank. Probably can get an Abrams if you could find a buyer.

>>15830

Your land would have to be big enough to contain it. And you would have to stop the radioactive fallout from reaching anyone else's property. So yes, it'd be fine, but the amount of money and time it would take to buy a nuke, buy a piece of land big enough to contain it, detonate it and control it, would probably turn you away from such a pointless act. By the way, if the world had obeyed the NAP throughout the entire 20th century, there would never have been any nuclear attacks or tests. Just saying.

>>15837

If the world had obeyed NAP, we'd have no wars whatsoever.

Of course, we'd also probably have far fewer advancements too.

>>15839

>Of course, we'd also probably have far fewer advancements too.

Depends. The Library of Alexandria had enough information that we could have reached space 400 years ago if they figured out the Bessemer steel process a little sooner (which they likely would have).

Similarly, the Islamic "Golden Age" actually destroyed centuries of information.

If the NAP had been followed through the ages, chances are the Catholic church (and its various protestant extensions) probably wouldn't exist since the Orthodox church wouldn't have been ravaged (or would be much smaller anyways), and we'd potentially be colonizing the moon right now.

>>15830

Theoretically, yes.

>>15839

>nap

>capitalism

>slow advancements

lol

If the US was unregulated, we'd get cheap AF public transportation, easy flights, cheap food, tons of new vacant job entries and death to the idiots.

>>15839

Anarcho-capitalism is an utopia that can never be realized.

> what if I raped your mom, would you still turn the other cheek?

"yes. it would be the christian thing to do"

> what if a fired a nuke in my own air space, that's still cool, right?

"yes, that wouldn't violate the NAP"

/liberty/

>>15922

Raping someone's mom is a violation of the Non-Aggression Axiom. Left-Libertarians would tell you "this gives you the right to stop someone from raping your mother," but as far an AnCaps are concerned "the rapist is no longer protected by the NAP and may be dealt with however if caught during or immediately after the act- otherwise you'd need to use proper force to restrain them if they were caught later."

From a Christian perspective, there's a huge difference between turning the other cheek (forgiveness and pacifism) and being a pansy (complete nonviolence). lets make sure we're clear that I'm referring to conditional dentological pacifism before someone makes the case for absolute pacifism.

>muh nukes

If you've read the responses, we're quite clear that you'd be liable for any damages your nuclear bomb causes, so unless you're very careful with its detonation (which would ruin the land it was used on anyways) to a theoretically near-impossible degree, it would be extremely unlikely (if I had to put a number on it, probably one in a septillion) that you could afford the bomb, land to use it on, and all the safeguards to not damage other's property.

ghost post.

>>15922

Well, I ain't hurting noone, so why shouldn't I be able to nuke shit?

It's my business you damn dirty fascist. If I want to feel the warm breeze of a thermalnuclear warhead with my own skin, that is my business.

>>15922

Great post, /liberty/ is a bunch of pussies who are afraid of strong people and want everyone to be beta shits

>>15937

>>15941

It's not the truth of the statement that's the problem. It's the fact that you answered it.

Do you enjoy playing to caricatures of yourselves, or do you just not care?

>>15996

maybe it's because we're more level-headed than you, and accept questions and try to answer them. We're also not self-hating idiots.

>>15996

When you allow people to shout bullshit (even as a meme), meme magic will eventually make it a reality as dumbasses absorb it.

So of course I'm going to respond to bait. I don't have much of a choice- have you seen how many dumbasses are roaming through North America?

>>16013

fuck off christian retard

>>16004

k, stay fringe, 'wacky' and marginal

>>16013

You're not educating anyone, not least prejudiced dumbasses. You just look unreasonable and removed from reality.

You should respond to meaningful criticism.

>"yes. it would be the christian thing to do"

Slapping your cheek =/= raping your mom. Jesus said to turn the other cheek, and you interpret that as "retaliation is prohibited under all circumstances"?

If the Bible said to let people rape your parents, it would say that, but it doesn't, because you shouldn't.

>"yes, that wouldn't violate the NAP"

Because it wouldn't, as long as you weren't hurting anyone. You see, we use these things called "principles" and we stick to them even in extreme circumstances. Weird, I know!

>>15996

If I want to nuke my own property, that's my own damn business you damn fascist.

Why do you care? Why should the gubmint care? It's my stuff.

>>15845

>The Library of Alexandria had enough information that we could have reached space 400 years ago if they figured out the Bessemer steel process a little sooner (which they likely would have).

I heard that was a myth and the Library of Alexandria has been ridiculously overblown when really it was just a storage house for census records.

>>15950

Says the collectivist that is nothing on his own.

>>16195

>muh collectivists

Nice bogeyman, bro

>>16199

>>>/pol/

If your name is Ahmed, Jamal or something like that, no.