Property and water rights?

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Theoretically possible, in the same sense that if everyone in America decides black people don't deserve rights then they can vote to implement that. If everyone else in society decides they don't recognize black people's rights then they probably won't have de facto rights under any system, except a very autocratic one with a sympathetic (to blacks) ruler. What system do you know of that doesn't have this problem?

[/ QUOTE ]


So, just to clarify: in AC land, the majority has the ability to take away the rights of the minority?


Isnt this one of the biggest complaints ACist make about a democracy?

[/ QUOTE ]

I do believe in AC it would take a lot more than a 50%+1 majority.

[/ QUOTE ]
The absolute *numbers* of people who prefer X or Y or Z don't really matter so much outside of a state. The *strength* of those people's preferences is much more important.

[/ QUOTE ]
...and even more important is the strength of the preference-holder; a tyrant is a minority opinion backed by firepower. Which is great, because in ACland, anybody with a little knowledge can build their own ebola-bomb, so the chances of such tyrrany are coming to pass are minimal. Of course, the chances of an ebola outbreak may be a smidge higher, but hey man, bleeding from the eyes or not, at least we'll be free.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
How many people "oppose gay marriage"? Apparently, a lot of them. But how strong is that preference? How many care enough about it that they would actually fund activities to prevent such voluntary contracts *out of their own pocket*? Instead, they just check a box and make other people pay for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

But, what if the vast majority of people preferred a world in which they could exercise these preferences cheaply? And, they preferred this world so much that they were willing to to fund it out of their own pocket?

[BCPVP]

Lol. First, states have already weaponized germs and chemicals (like ours at one point). Second, the existance of a state doesn't preclude people from knowing how to build an "ebola bomb". So yeah, not very good arguments against a free society.

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
Lol. First, states have already weaponized germs and chemicals (like ours at one point). Second, the existance of a state doesn't preclude people from knowing how to build an "ebola bomb". So yeah, not very good arguments against a free society.

[/ QUOTE ]

BCPVP, of course the state doens't totally prevent it, but it's a little silly to conclude that NRCs and the like don't help keep bombs out of madmen's hands. By a small margin, sure, but in a 100% free market society, it's likely to be easier.

Cody

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lol. First, states have already weaponized germs and chemicals (like ours at one point). Second, the existance of a state doesn't preclude people from knowing how to build an "ebola bomb". So yeah, not very good arguments against a free society.

[/ QUOTE ]

BCPVP, of course the state doens't totally prevent it, but it's a little silly to conclude that NRCs and the like don't help keep bombs out of madmen's hands. By a small margin, sure, but in a 100% free market society, it's likely to be easier.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]
There is no way to keep bombs out of madmen's hands unless you lock everyone up or put 24-hour surveillance of everyone. And in light of recent events, it doesn't really seem like a great idea to put all of our trust in the government to ferret out NBC programs...

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no way to keep bombs out of madmen's hands unless you lock everyone up or put 24-hour surveillance of everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree, but that wasn't the point.

Cody

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no way to keep bombs out of madmen's hands unless you lock everyone up or put 24-hour surveillance of everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree, but that wasn't the point.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]
Jogger's assertion seemed to be that it would be somehow easier to make a biological weapon in a free society. Seems like a non sequitor to me. A biological weapon is really either a weapon for wartime or a political weapon used to threaten territories. Since a free society probably isn't going to go to total war and there won't be a "state" to threaten, worrying about biological weapons seems pretty foolish. It seems all the more foolish when the status quo already has NBC weapons developed by states to threaten other states.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no way to keep bombs out of madmen's hands unless you lock everyone up or put 24-hour surveillance of everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree, but that wasn't the point.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]
Jogger's assertion seemed to be that it would be somehow easier to make a biological weapon in a free society. Seems like a non sequitor to me. A biological weapon is really either a weapon for wartime or a political weapon used to threaten territories. Since a free society probably isn't going to go to total war and there won't be a "state" to threaten, worrying about biological weapons seems pretty foolish. It seems all the more foolish when the status quo already has NBC weapons developed by states to threaten other states.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who needs a state to threaten? Want to annex the adjacent land but the pesky owners get in the way? Send them a little Hanta virus.

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no way to keep bombs out of madmen's hands unless you lock everyone up or put 24-hour surveillance of everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree, but that wasn't the point.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, as evidenced by

[ QUOTE ]
but hey man, bleeding from the eyes or not, at least we'll be free.

[/ QUOTE ]

the only point was to antogonize ACists.