[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand what the problem is. If there is a crazy guy on the street waving a gun around, do people have to wait for him to start shooting to take action? No, of course not. The same is true of "irrational cults" that want nuclear weapons. A nuclear weapon cannot be used defensively nor selectively against an aggressor, hence individuals or their agents are perfectly justified in using force against those seeking to do so.

Is your question really "Who's job is it to keep an eye on cults looking to acquire WMD and prevent them from using them"? I would say that the appriate candidates are insurance companies. You insure yourself against aggression and the insurance companies have huge financial incentives to make sure their clients do not go up in a radioactive mushroom cloud. Insurance companies are large and numerous with vast assets to protect and resources available to do the job. They havefar ranging reinsurance agreements with each other to spread risk out. I am 100% certain that numerous competing AND cooperating such firms could do a VASTLY superior job of protecting people against threats than a monopolist whose one-size-fits-all policies are motivated by politics.

[/ QUOTE ]
The line of when a pre-emptive strike is OK seems grey to me. We live in a world with nuclear weapons and wackos who think the end of the world would be a good thing. Being wacko doesnt make them dumb though - they're not going to laugh maniacally as they go in to pick up the components of a nuclear device. The scenario I am envisioning doesnt seem far fetched - a charismatic loony founds a sect with an above board facade claiming it will use nuclear devices for peaceful purposes. Once it has access, the loon decides its apocalypse time. I cant see how an AC solution can allow anyone to intervene based on what they suspect the cult is up to.

[ QUOTE ]
And you *still* haven't explained how your solution to preventing "irrational cults" from gaining nuclear weapons, to create a massive irrational cult to control society and then give it nuclear weapons, makes a lick of [censored] sense. Frankly, I think it's patently insane and have no idea how you could fall for such a ridiculous idea, since you seem to be an otherwise very intelligent guy.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am in the position of supporting the ideals of an AC society, but have some concerns as to how some problems will be solved. Some of them have been answered - I no longer worry about whether there would be roads, whether billionaires would incarcerate the rest of us and make us slaves, etcetera etcetera. Nonetheless, there are some things I think a state does better and they worry me enough to stick with the devil I know. (Not that I'm in any position to really do anything anyhow)

The areas I worry about are essentially those which require a fast resolution and where there is a point-of-no-return (ie the nuclear apocalypse). A state can pre-emptively resolve the problem easily enough. I dont expect ACists to have everything worked out in detail - that's obviously counter to the whole thrust of AC. I do expect there to be some assurance that a solution is possible.

Another example (though weaker) is the state response to CFCs - states could legislate against the damage to the ozone layer before the damage had progressed too far. Waiting til people had suffered damage and could therefore sue would have taken much longer (not to mention the problems associated with who to sue). States bring the problems of coercion and monopoly, but there are also some situations where they have the advantage of speedy response.

Ultimately, I am not claiming that states have a better solution to these problems. My position is that I know what the state solution is - it's not perfect, but I know there is an answer. I am leery of jumping into supporting an alternative scheme for structuring society without hearing at least some possibilities for how these problems might be addressed.