Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's funny how you think that getting to the heart of the matter is "distraction." But from your answer I can see why you don't want to have this discussion, it's just sheer nonsense. The word "right" doesn't refer to "we've always raped and pillaged after we won a war, so that gives us a right to keep on doing it." I don't think you are philosophically equipped to use the word "right" here. For you, "right" simply m…
The topic of the discussion is a nuclear accident. Nevertheless I'm still discussing libertarianism with you. The word "right" doesn't refer to "we've always raped and pillaged after we won a war, so that gives us a right to keep on doing it." I agree with that 100%. I don't think anything I have said could be taken to mean that I support rape & pillage. For you, "right" simply means "might." No it doesn't, and just…
This is incorrect. Certainly some strains of libertarianism wrongly think that, but certainly not all. The word "libertarian" is a very loose idea, not some specific ideology. And besides, you were the one who claimed I was "libertarian", I never made the claim myself. What I'd say is that I'm pro-individual consent. "Classical liberal" is a fine word.
I also completely reject that view: I believe that governmental power is derived from a civil society and that power is society's way of imposing an agreed set of behaviour in the face of bad actors. I see nothing immoral or wrong in this - indeed, it is the very principle of democracy.
The question you're ignoring is: what are the proper limits of government power? You claim I'm ignoring questions, but this is the only question of importance. I only bring up the drugs example to highlight an obvious abuse. Nuclear power is a more complex issue. When you're confused about arithmetic, we don't discuss calculus. Likewise, when you're confused about rights, we don't discuss nuclear power. We stick with simpler issues.