Because the result of nuking an enemy country would be to give the (now somewhat pissed-off) enemy population superpowers.
In fact, it’s a mystery why Japan didn’t win World War II in that universe.
Archive | January, 2012
Where Minarchists Fear to Tread
In 1849, the members of the Society of Political Economy – the chief organisation for classical liberalism in France at the time – met to discuss Molinari’s proposal for the competitive provision of security. 
The meeting included some of the foremost liberal thinkers of the day, such as Bastiat, Dunoyer, Coquelin, Wolowski, and Horace Say (son of J.-B.). Without exception they agreed that Molinari’s ideas were unworkable, offering much the same objections to market anarchism as those that are prevalent today. (Although, oddly, nobody raised the objection that would later lead Molinari himself to moderate his position, namely the problem of so-called “public goods.”) Even Dunoyer, who in his earlier work had come close to Molinari’s position, now held that it was best to leave coercive force “where civilisation has placed it – in the State.”
As Rothbard notes, this is an odd claim coming from “one of the great founders of the conquest theory of the State.” Dunoyer’s suggestion that democratic elections provide all the competition that’s needed in the market for security also sits oddly with his earlier interest-group analysis of electoral politics.
A summary of this meeting was published in a subsequent issue of the Society’s organ, the Journal des Économistes. I have now translated and posted this summary, which bears the title “Question of the Limits of State Action and Individual Action Discussed at the Society of Political Economy.”
Pineapples From Space
More juvenilia: The Elemen Transaction and Ill-Starred Romance (two odd little things, not stories exactly – both age 12).
The World Is Not Yet Prepared
A preview of the next episode of Sherlock:
Good Night Irene
Just finished watching “A Scandal in Belgravia,” the first episode of Sherlock series 2. It is so, so good, and would be so, so ruined by spoilers that I will say no more about it, except:
- It’s pretty much ruined the Doctor Who Christmas special for me. Apart from some feminist grumblings I quite enjoyed “The Doctor, the Widow, and the Wardrobe,” but only because I’d forgotten how good Moffat can be when he’s at the top of his game. “Scandal” just blows “Widow” out of the water; it’s a thousand times better. (Exactly a thousand; I measured it with my agathometer.)
- It’s preemptively ruined Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows for me also. “Scandal” is the Sherlock Holmes movie of the present season; whatever the theatrical movie is like, it can’t hope to measure up.
- One of the best moments in the episode is also a Doctor Who reference. But those who know only the 21st century version of Doctor Who won’t get it. (There’s also a Wrath of Khan reference.)
On the down side: given how persnickety Sherlock was about grammar in the opening scene of last season’s “Great Game,” it’s a bit incongruous that he says “you sent John and I” in “Scandal.”
Happy World’s End!
