If freedom is the only means, then yes, but you'd have to defend that claim and it's a very hard claim to defend. If I can give examples where it's not the only means, then we can show well-being may, in some circumstances, be more important that complete freedom alone. My example of anyone and everyone having the "freedom" to own a weapon of mass destruction might be a valid example which challenges your claim.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Well, if someone owns a nuclear weapon I don't necessarily see what's wrong with that. Of course using it may potentially deny the freedom of others, but by just processing something I don't think that violates anyones freedom. It's a lifeboat ethical example, but I see what you're getting at.
Anything that is done for human flourishing comes from free thinking in the first place. Morality, commerce, social manners and etiquette, spirituality, art, and so forth can only come about if humans have the freedom to associate with one another without any intervention or control by others.
If force is used to achieve what some people would consider "well-being", is that really for the well-being?
If someone is crazy enough to kill 50+ and then take their own life, do you think they might also be crazy enough to detonate a nuclear bomb?
If so, Vegas might not exist right now.
If that's a potential reality, is it rational to say, "Yeah, everyone can own a nuke. That's fine with me, as long as they don't use it." To me, if weapons of mass destruction were easier to obtain, they would be used more often and we'd all suffer because of it. Same argument works for guns which are designed to be excellent offensive killing machines.
Most likely, but in an environment of true freedom, I have doubts a nuclear weapon would exist, if it did, whoever controlled its usage would be highly under watch and made transparent, perhaps blockchain could facilitate this; also we are talking about hypotheticals here.
I think guns would serve some purposes in a voluntary society, though there's room for innovation in more defensive type tools to counteract violence.
I'd love to see more of this for sure.
That reminds me, I read something recently about Thorium Salt Nuclear reactors. They are safer than what we have today, but originally they were not used because it was too difficult to create weapons-grade material from the process. Sad how the priorities of war dictate so much of life.
Yup, the development of nuclear weapons is backwards and not conducive toward freedom.
The same shooter had materials to make a bomb. He could have easily killed far more people by detonating a device in the middle of the crowd. High pressure waves are a real bitch. :( Are we going to outlaw all chemicals? That's impossible. Remove guns, and people can still make explosives.
The WMD argument is flawed though. Governments have proven they cannot be trusted with them either, so what's the difference really? They get a get out of jail card? A free pass? "Oops, we're sorry" doesn't cut it. :)