Nuclear/chemical weapons

Should individuals be allowed to own these weapons?  My guess is yes, but just wondering what you all think.

Spideynw:

Should individuals be allowed to own these weapons?  My guess is yes, but just wondering what you all think.

 

Own them, yes. Keep them around other people, no. A threat to do something criminal is a crime itself, and there's an implicit threat in the proximity of those things to populated area.

MacFall:

A threat to do something criminal is a crime itself

What, like a Thought Crime?

But my thought on these weapons is that they have no legitimate role in a civilized society, self-defensive or otherwise, and would be made prohibitive to own through whatever means the community has at its disposal to accomplish this prohibition. Insanely high insurance rates being the most likely avenue in a free society.

It really depends on the yield. Small, tactical nuclear bombs are the safest way to defend from the kind of motorized army that the U.S. fields. One bomb can blow a whole division away, rendering an invasion futile. 

The big city-killer bombs mounted on intercontinental missiles are just terror weapons, and in a free society have no strategic use whatsoever.

Now that I think of it, the propagation of nuclear weapons has the same social effect that the move to gunpowder weapons once had. Medieval armies relied on expensive, highly trained troops that became obsolete once you could give anyone a rifle and a month of training to make an army. Tanks are the new knights, but they can't be put to much use against a nuclear-armed militia.

Individuals would, of course, be 'allowed' to own nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.  However, as mentioned before, this would probably lead to very high insurance rates for individuals.  Also, it is unlikely that anyone would be willing to deal with you if you kept nukes laying around the house.

On the other hand, private defense agencies and militias with a good reputation would probably own tactical nuclear and chemical weapons, as deterrents to large-scale invasions, without too much of a financial penalty.  Biological weapons are rather more iffy, as (with current tech, this could change in the future) they are rather hard to control.  Large-yield nukes (in excess of a few kilotons, really) would also probably be out of the question.

 Again, all of this is completly voluntary.  You *could* keep a 50-megaton hydrogen bomb in your basement for company.  People just wouldn't buy from, sell to, or probably even talk to you.

 

Spideynw:

Should individuals be allowed to own these weapons?  My guess is yes, but just wondering what you all think.

 

You're asking the question from a god's eye view. 

A better question would be: What would you do to an individual who owned these weapons?  

MacFall:

A threat to do something criminal is a crime itself

No, its not. 

If I say to you, "I'm going to sodomize Justin Timberlake". Have I committed a crime? Of course not.  If someone is in danger of having a crime committed against them they are entitled to act in their own defense, but that is entirelly removed from the legal system. Killing in self defense and the death penalty are completely different actions.

MacFall:

there's an implicit threat in the proximity of those things to populated area.

No, theres not. 

Owning a gun, or a stick of dynomite, near a populated is an equaly implicit threat. 

 

But, in a free society, people owning these devices would not be legally required to have any insurance. Right? 

Harksaw:

But, in a free society, people owning these devices would not be legally required to have any insurance. Right?

But without an insurance company / private defense angecy to protect them and their weapons of mass destruction there would also be nothing to stop the local community from deciding these weapons are too dangerous to let somebody own, getting together a few dozen men with guns (or a militia) to converge on their place of residence, break in, and take away the weapons to be dismantled. 

BWF89:

Harksaw:

But, in a free society, people owning these devices would not be legally required to have any insurance. Right?

But without an insurance company / private defense angecy to protect them and their weapons of mass destruction there would also be nothing to stop the local community from deciding these weapons are too dangerous to let somebody own, getting together a few dozen men with guns (or a militia) to converge on their place of residence, break in, and take away the weapons to be dismantled. 

 

That's assuming quite a bit. Assuming that the WMD owner tells the public so they even know about it, assuming that he doesn't have a big family with their own guns, assuming he can't use his chemical weapons on the people trying to take them from him . . .

Harksaw:

 

That's assuming quite a bit. Assuming that the WMD owner tells the public so they even know about it, assuming that he doesn't have a big family with their own guns, assuming he can't use his chemical weapons on the people trying to take them from him . . .

 

Stop trying to wargame the situation. The question is quite legitimate: would someone who is known to hold weapons of mass destruction be expelled from a community? If so, there is no amount of personal security system that would undo his expulsion.

Anonymous Coward:

MacFall:

A threat to do something criminal is a crime itself

What, like a Thought Crime?

 

No, nothing like a Thought Crime. To threaten a person with harm is coercion, and coercion is criminal. 

Hopefully the roads would make it illegal to transfer those weapons without some sort of permit only attainable by a respected PDF or militia. So when the roads find out that he/she does have the weapons the roads police can arrest him/her, and put his/her nukes back where they came from, as they could not have gotten to the destination without the illegal use of their roads.

 

Stranger:

Harksaw:

 

That's assuming quite a bit. Assuming that the WMD owner tells the public so they even know about it, assuming that he doesn't have a big family with their own guns, assuming he can't use his chemical weapons on the people trying to take them from him . . .

 

Stop trying to wargame the situation. The question is quite legitimate: would someone who is known to hold weapons of mass destruction be expelled from a community? If so, there is no amount of personal security system that would undo his expulsion.

 

I didn't know Austrian philosophy allowed for any entity to have the power to forcibly evict someone from their own personal property, when they hadn't even hurt anyone, stolen from them, or otherwise violated anyones' rights. Does it?

No, of course not. But people are permitted to forbid such persons and their property from any contact with their own within reason, and I would suggest that in the case of WMD's that "reason" includes a measure of proximity. But even without that provision, it is very doubtful that any civilized area would do business with such a reckless person - in short, there would be a strong disincentive for the owner of WMD's to get them anywhere near others, even if it were permitted by law. 

 

BWF89:

also be nothing to stop the local community from deciding these weapons are too dangerous to let somebody own, getting together a few dozen men with guns (or a militia) to converge on their place of residence, break in, and take away the weapons to be dismantled. 

So you're against the government doing something like this, but for allowing an untrained mob band of people to do it? The government cannot use force to restrain these people, but a mob can? The mob is allowed to commit violence?

ChaseCola:

Hopefully the roads would make it illegal to transfer those weapons without some sort of permit only attainable by a respected PDF or militia. So when the roads find out that he/she does have the weapons the roads police can arrest him/her, and put his/her nukes back where they came from, as they could not have gotten to the destination without the illegal use of their roads.

 

This is ridiculous.  So people would be allowed to have nukes, but it would be illegal to move them?  And the road companies would have to search every car! 

Harksaw:

 

I didn't know Austrian philosophy allowed for any entity to have the power to forcibly evict someone from their own personal property, when they hadn't even hurt anyone, stolen from them, or otherwise violated anyones' rights. Does it?

 

If the covenant in place requires them not to stockpile dangerous weapons, then they are violating the community's rights. 

Stranger:

If the covenant in place requires them not to stockpile dangerous weapons, then they are violating the community's rights. 

There are only individual rights.  There are no "community" rights.

Stranger:

If the covenant in place requires them not to stockpile dangerous weapons, then they are violating the community's rights.

I thought Austrian ideas were about private property, not some sort of collective ownership of the land?

Basically, the philosophical ingredient of the question amounts to the decision between absolute individual responsibility (total freedom, anarchism) and selectively chosen protective measures enforced by whatever authority in place (relative freedom, minarchism in the best case).

If you state that "Nuclear weapons threaten the well-being of a community and therefore should be banned", you'll also have to endorse a superior power to take measures accordingly. This power, as we all see today, may as well earlier or later infringe upon other freedoms deemed as dangerous, e.g. the freedom to own any kind of arms. We have laid the moral foundation for that by stating a thing should not be allowed because "it's dangerous".

If you, on the other hand, rely on road owners to be reasonable and forbid transport of nuclear material, you'll face a problem of practicability and another problem of endurance. As has been pointed out before, it'd be a big task for road owners to check every car just to carry out that particular regulation. That's the practical issue. Drivers will eventually get annoyed and profits will fall. Road owners are therewith inclined to change the rules, or a smart road builder is going to set up another road next to the existing one to suck off profits by not making the same mistakes his competitor tripped over. So endurance is not calculable here. Which means that, in the long run, people are still going to get their nukes, either through sloppy controls or through road owners' desire to maximize profits. Of course, there's a chance it may not turn out that way, but it's by no means great enough to count on if you really want nukes out of private hands.

The minarchist is advantaged on the issue as he can weigh dangers with benefits and decide, as an elected lawmaker, on a case to case basis without having to apply Austrian principles. Market anarchists will have to be blunt and say "Yes, we take the dangers of nuclear armageddon for the sake of free humanity", everything else being an excuse for not sticking to principles.

Needless to say that with hardly controllable bio weapons and WMDs, it's become a lot tougher to stick to radical market anarchism than it was in the days of gunpowder and Kentucky rifles.

I am fully aware that they would not find the nukes before they reach their destination, but once it is found out the nuke were moved in breach of contract the nukes could be sent back to where they came from. On many roads it would be legal to have nukes, but there would most likely be many roads that the nukes had travelled on and some of them would have that be illegal.

Ok, I think my original question was too vague.  My question is, is owning a nuclear/chemical weapon a "right", part of the right to bear arms?  Or think of it as, does the right to bear arms mean the right to own nuclear/chemical weapons, tanks, fighter jets, missiles/rockets, etc., etc.  Is this an inherent/natural right of human beings?

Yes, property rights apply to all objects, even nuclear weapons. But I think the market will find ways to keep out these weapons.

I would say that the right not to be prohibited from action that is not harmful to others includes the ownership of such things. The tricky part is in extending that right to how they are used and their proximity to other persons and property.

MacFall:

The tricky part is in extending that right to how they are used and their proximity to other persons and property.

Well obviously, they could only be used legally in self-defense.  As to proximity that depends on if you are talking about proximity to the "weapon" or proximity to the destruction of the weapon.  In the former, it is irrelevant.  In the latter, it should be illegal to kill innocent victims.

MacFall:

Anonymous Coward:

MacFall:

A threat to do something criminal is a crime itself

What, like a Thought Crime?

 

No, nothing like a Thought Crime. To threaten a person with harm is coercion, and coercion is criminal. 

 

Not actually. A threat is a threat. Coercion is using the threat of violence to influence action. 

I see too many objectional statements to reply to each one so ill just make an accumulative post.

Any use of the word "allow" invalidates the argument because it begs the question, who is allowed to decide what should be allowed? 

What legitimate purpose would a private defense company have for owning weapons of indiscriminate murder? Surely these weapons are never libertarian.

Several people have proposed a contractual solutions to this "problem", yet the essence of libertarianism is the NAP. You may believe that some uses of property are less appropriate than others but I do not find that to be a libertarian sentiment.  Any influence exerted would have to be social; a boycott, instead of an invasion. An attempt to confiscate WMDs, no matter on what pseudo-voluntary grounds, would be anti-libertarian. 

The premise of the question itself is questionable. It presumes that WMDs are not available because the State forbids it, and in the absence of State coercion people would begin owning WMDs. But that assumption is contrary to experience. We know that the consequence of prohibition is not the unavailability of a good, but rather increased cost and reduced quality.

There is some international demand for acquisition of nuclear weapons despite the effective ban. But this demand is almost universally defensive in nature, though in many cases in order to defend states completely illegitimate in origin. Israel, Pakistan, and India were created arbitrarily out of former colonies. And Israel, though an aggressive State, has yet to use its nuke.

People do not own WMDs because people are social while States are anti-social.

JonBostwick:

The premise of the question itself is questionable. It presumes that WMDs are not available because the State forbids it, and in the absence of State coercion people would begin owning WMDs. But that assumption is contrary to experience. We know that the consequence of prohibition is not the unavailability of a good, but rather increased cost and reduced quality.

Very interesting point.

Spideynw:

Stranger:

If the covenant in place requires them not to stockpile dangerous weapons, then they are violating the community's rights. 

There are only individual rights.  There are no "community" rights.

 

There are only property rights. A county or city is a property that someone can be expelled from for not following the rules. 

 

Stranger:

Spideynw:

Stranger:

If the covenant in place requires them not to stockpile dangerous weapons, then they are violating the community's rights. 

There are only individual rights.  There are no "community" rights.

 

There are only property rights. A county or city is a property that someone can be expelled from for not following the rules. 

From my understanding of Misean philosophy, a person should have the ability to secede from all governments, down to the individual level.

 

You're presupposing that this person has signed some kind of homeowners' covenant, but that's just a special scenario.  What about people who haven't? 

Stranger:

There are only property rights. A county or city is a property that someone can be expelled from for not following the rules. 

No.  County or city property should only be owned by individuals.  Not allowing individuals to own the property is simply violating their rights.  An individual should only be punished if s/he has violated the rights of another individual.

Harksaw:

 

You're presupposing that this person has signed some kind of homeowners' covenant, but that's just a special scenario.  What about people who haven't? 

 

People who don't live in such a covenant presumably own estates large enough that their neighbors are at a distance that makes nuclear weapons unthreatening. 

Stranger:

There are only property rights. A county or city is a property that someone can be expelled from for not following the rules. 

 

False. What you are describing is the state in miniature. 

Me owning a piece of property does not entitle me to some vague form of ownership over any near by individual.

It appears that your conclusion preceded your justification.

You believe that since people should be able to tell their neighbors what to do then people will voluntarily enter into arguments where one person can force the other to act contrary to his will. Or more specifically, where the many will dictate to the few.

It seems to me that you have missed the point of the libertarianism, the market, everything. Violence is never an appropriate reaction to nonviolence. A person being violently forced off his land is not voluntary association. It does not matter if it occurs within a frame work of volunteerism, the act is illegitimate. Just because people enter an agreement does not mean it is enforceable under libertarian law, and the types of "covenants" that you are endorsing don't seem to qualify as enforceable.

JonBostwick:

False. What you are describing is the state in miniature. 

 

 

A state is a monopoly on justice that allows someone to unilaterally declare the price to be paid for protection. That has nothing to do with estates, which are properties that one lives in and have their own rules. Now unless you are super-rich and own an estate big enough to make the rules yourself, you will need to join a community and agree to their rules. Therefore if you break the rules, such as a rule against possessing weapons of mass destruction, then you are the violator of their rights and force may be legitimately used against you.

As Hoppe has made clear liberty does not grant you the ability to do anything you want cost-free. 

Stranger:

 

unless you are super-rich and own an estate big enough to make the rules yourself, you will need to join a community and agree to their rules.

 

 

Explain why agreeing to a community's rules would be necessary.

You people are aware that homeowners associations, gated communities etc. already have their own rules, right? And that these do not need the State to be enforced, correct? For instance, in South Africa many gated communities, corporate compounds and the like are protected by private firms - to the extent that the locals trust them more than the government. And these communities certainly have their own rules, albeit none too restrictive.

Stranger:

Harksaw:

 

You're presupposing that this person has signed some kind of homeowners' covenant, but that's just a special scenario.  What about people who haven't? 

 

People who don't live in such a covenant presumably own estates large enough that their neighbors are at a distance that makes nuclear weapons unthreatening. 

 

Most people living today haven't signed up for a homeowner's association. Why do you assume everybody has? I currently own a house with no homeowner's association, and it's only on a half acre.

Most people living today haven't signed up for a homeowner's association. Why do you assume everybody has? I currently own a house with no homeowner's association, and it's only on a half acre.

I can't speak for Stranger's intent, but he's on the right track. What stops your neighbor from getting a nuke is that his homeowner's insurance and defense agency will both drop him if he tries. In addition, the DA will announce it publicly to disclaim any liability. Your DA will in turn at least notify you, as will those of your neighbor's other neighbors. You'll give the neighbor a piece of your mind, and stop inviting him to barbecues. More importantly, either through action on your part or automatically, through reciprocal contracts, the road and utility companies will cut him off as well.

The net result is that your neighbor will be defenseless against crime, fire or casualty, uninsured against losses of any kind, and denied transport to/from his property as well as utlities.

Which brings us back to Stranger's quote. If the neighbor doesn't need insurance, can defend his own property against any crime, and can get power and transportation without using anyone else's services (for example, by owning his own hydro plant and airport), he's apparently big enough to operate a nuclear testing ground safely on his own property.

It's a bit misleading to sum all that up as "HOA membership," but the idea is there. In a free market, replacements must evolve for all socialised services, especially police, roads and utilities. Basic economic considerations suggest that infrastructure providers, insurers and defense providers will enter into contracts for mutual benefit that will include efficient notifications, denial of service to "criminals and outlaws" (suitably defined for libertarian society), etc. Homeowners will also want basic guarantees, for example so they can't be arbitrarily denied road access. The end result is analogous to today's HOAs.

--Len. 

Harksaw:

Explain why agreeing to a community's rules would be necessary.

 

It is not necessary. You can live in your own estate far away from civilization. The costs to do so, however, are extreme.

If you're shrewd enough, you may be in a position where you become a landlord and you get to make the rules of a community. However you still have to pay the full cost of having weapons of mass destruction, such as the fact that not many people will want to live in your community. 

 

Harksaw:

Most people living today haven't signed up for a homeowner's association. Why do you assume everybody has? I currently own a house with no homeowner's association, and it's only on a half acre.

 

That is because you live in a government-owned estate.

 

Len Budney:

Basic economic considerations suggest that infrastructure providers, insurers and defense providers will enter into contracts for mutual benefit that will include efficient notifications, denial of service to "criminals and outlaws" (suitably defined for libertarian society), etc.

 

What you describing is social influence. It is completely dissimilar to running someone off their property on the grouds of a broken promise, because it relies on market incentives rather than violent disincentives.