Snowflake:Obamas gotten a lot of press for his nuclear treaty thing... basically my interpretation is that "crazy countries" end up with fewer nukes. But its okay for us to have nukes. Anyway, it seems like a good thing that there are fewer nukes in the world, especially if folks who might use them on us can't get them. Is this an instance where the interest of the state intersects with the general interest?
Nielsio:State interest, incentives and paranoia created enough of these weapons to end the world as we know it many times over. The fact that this didn't happen yet shows us how incredibly lucky we are, not how incredibly safe we are.
Bert:Sounds like a political scheme to get their enemies where they want them. If they are really serious about disarming we'd start if off first and now.
Snowflake: Nielsio:State interest, incentives and paranoia created enough of these weapons to end the world as we know it many times over. The fact that this didn't happen yet shows us how incredibly lucky we are, not how incredibly safe we are. So you would support Obama's efforts to disarm? :)
socialdtk:I agree with what Rothbard says concerning weapons of mass destruction in his essay War, Peace and the State. He takes the position that the possession of nuclear weapons is a criminal act
Conza88:I suggest you carefully re-read the said passage.
It has often been maintained, and especially by conservatives, that the development of the horrendous modern weapons of mass murder (nuclear weapons, rockets, germ warfare, etc.) is only a difference of degree rather than kind from the simpler weapons of an earlier era. Of course, one answer to this is that when the degree is the number of human lives, the difference is a very big one.4 But another answer that the libertarian is particularly equipped to give is that while the bow and arrow and even the rifle can be pinpointed, if the will be there, against actual criminals, modern nuclear weapons cannot. Here is a crucial difference in kind. Of course, the bow and arrow could be used for aggressive purposes, but it could also be pinpointed to use only against aggressors. Nuclear weapons, even "conventional" aerial bombs, cannot be. These weapons are ipso facto engines of indiscriminate mass destruction. (The only exception would be the extremely rare case where a mass of people who were all criminals inhabited a vast geographical area.) We must, therefore, conclude that the use of nuclear or similar weapons, or the threat thereof, is a sin and a crime against humanity for which there can be no justification.
This is why the old cliché no longer holds that it is not the arms but the will to use them that is significant in judging matters of war and peace. For it is precisely the characteristic of modern weapons that they cannot be used selectively, cannot be used in a libertarian manner. Therefore, their very existence must be condemned, and nuclear disarmament becomes a good to be pursued for its own sake. And if we will indeed use our strategic intelligence, we will see that such disarmament is not only a good, but the highest political good that we can pursue in the modem world. For just as murder is a more heinous crime against another man than larceny, so mass murder – indeed murder so widespread as to threaten human civilization and human survival itself – is the worst crime that any man could possibly commit. And that crime is now imminent. And the forestalling of massive annihilation is far more important, in truth, than the demunicipalization of garbage disposal, as worthwhile as that may be. Or are libertarians going to wax properly indignant about price control or the income tax, and yet shrug their shoulders at or even positively advocate the ultimate crime of mass murder?
Am I missing something?
socialdtk:Am I missing something?
Murray N. Rothbard:(The only exception would be the extremely rare case where a mass of people who were all criminals inhabited a vast geographical area.) We must, therefore, conclude that the use of nuclear or similar weapons, or the threat thereof, is a sin and a crime against humanity for which there can be no justification.
Just "use of", "or threat of"... NOT ownership. And as such, it is consistent with every single other thing he's ever written on the subject of self defense, non aggression & property rights.
For it is precisely the characteristic of modern weapons that they cannot be used selectively, cannot be used in a libertarian manner. Therefore, their very existence must be condemned, and nuclear disarmament becomes a good to be pursued for its own sake. And if we will indeed use our strategic intelligence, we will see that such disarmament is not only a good, but the highest political good that we can pursue in the moden world.
socialdtk:Thank you for the explanation but I'm still confused over the portion of the essay: For it is precisely the characteristic of modern weapons that they cannot be used selectively, cannot be used in a libertarian manner. Therefore, their very existence must be condemned, and nuclear disarmament becomes a good to be pursued for its own sake. And if we will indeed use our strategic intelligence, we will see that such disarmament is not only a good, but the highest political good that we can pursue in the moden world.
Nielsio:That Rothbard says their use must be immoral
Nielsio:But he then goes on to state it's possession must be immoral.
Nielsio:So I don't think your position regarding Rothbard holds.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Caley McKibbin:There's no convincing anyone that you possess a nuclear weapon for household decoration only.
Conza88: Caley McKibbin:There's no convincing anyone that you possess a nuclear weapon for household decoration only. And who would you need to convince? Where is the property conflict? ...
Nielsio:In a stateless society the property conflict is with literally everyone.
Where is the the conflict if the weapon isn't used?
MatthewF: Nielsio:In a stateless society the property conflict is with literally everyone. Where is the the conflict if the weapon isn't used?
socialdtk:He takes the position that the possession of nuclear weapons is a criminal act because unlike a rifle it is impossible to limit the effects of a nuclear bombs to criminal entities.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
E. R. Olovetto:The weapon's existence in possession constitutes a threat. That is the property conflict.
Spideynw: E. R. Olovetto:The weapon's existence in possession constitutes a threat. That is the property conflict. So is owning a gun or a knife.
Nielsio: A gun can be used perfectly for self-defense purposes. An atomic weapon cannot be used for defensive purposes in a state-less society.
Spideynw: Nielsio: A gun can be used perfectly for self-defense purposes. An atomic weapon cannot be used for defensive purposes in a state-less society. I have no idea what you think of as "defensive purposes" then, because I could definitely threaten an aggressor to launch my nuke at him if he tried to hurt me.
Caley McKibbin:Atomic bomb damage cannot be limited to a specific justifiable target. Let's not get into continuum fallacies.
Caley McKibbin:Atomic bomb damage cannot be limited to a specific justifiable target.
The damage could be limited by not deploying said bomb.
Nielsio:Without committing aggressive murder of innocents?
MatthewF: Caley McKibbin:Atomic bomb damage cannot be limited to a specific justifiable target. The damage could be limited by not deploying said bomb.
I agree. But are we talking about right and wrong here, or just popular opinion?
MatthewF:I agree. But are we talking about right and wrong here, or just popular opinion?
About another persons reasons for owning a bomb.
Spideynw: Nielsio:Without committing aggressive murder of innocents? Same thing with any bomb, missile, or artillery or tank.
MatthewF:About another persons reasons for owning a bomb.
Caley McKibbin:If it is opinion that the only plausible reason for owning a nuclear bomb is criminal, it is opinion that a man lunging at your throat with a knife has only one plausible intent: criminal.
A man owning a knife or a nuke isn't criminal.
A man "lunging at you" with a knife or a nuke is criminal.