Len Budney: My point in saying people don't WANT to be nuked is that Walmart won't stock them (because they don't want to be nuked), and Toshiba won't make them (because they don't want to be nuked), and Con Ed won't breed plutonium (because they don't want to be nuked), and Niger won't sell large quantities of uranium to shifty-eyed dudes muttering "death to the infidel!" (because they don't want to be nuked), and likewise makers of fancy centrifuges for the same reason, etc.
My point in saying people don't WANT to be nuked is that Walmart won't stock them (because they don't want to be nuked), and Toshiba won't make them (because they don't want to be nuked), and Con Ed won't breed plutonium (because they don't want to be nuked), and Niger won't sell large quantities of uranium to shifty-eyed dudes muttering "death to the infidel!" (because they don't want to be nuked), and likewise makers of fancy centrifuges for the same reason, etc.
On the other hand, people do not want other people to only have the power to nuke, and may feel the best defense to have some of their own...
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Spideynw: Len Budney:My point in saying people don't WANT to be nuked is that Walmart won't stock them (because they don't want to be nuked)... etc... On the other hand, people do not want other people to only have the power to nuke, and may feel the best defense to have some of their own...
Len Budney:My point in saying people don't WANT to be nuked is that Walmart won't stock them (because they don't want to be nuked)... etc...
Quite possible: the market is clever, and comes up with things we don't expect. It's possible that "nuclear defense agencies" will spring up, and folks will subscribe to nuclear defense. I don't think it's likely, because there are much more cost-effective ways of dealing with potential threats. A nuclear arsenal is a hideously expensive thing to build, maintain, and defend against disablement in a first-strike. But it's possible, and if so--so what? Such an agency would be smaller than the US government, so the risk is proportionally lessened.
--Len.
I fully expect that any respectable defense organization will attempt to acquire a small nuclear arsenal for the reasons I outlined beforehand: it is the most efficient method of killing an invading army along the lines of the U.S. military. Nuclear weapons create a virtual fortress.
Offensively they are useless, because they destroy indiscriminately, and in a stateless world you need to discriminate your enemy from your friends.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Stranger:I fully expect that any respectable defense organization will attempt to acquire a small nuclear arsenal for the reasons I outlined beforehand: it is the most efficient method of killing an invading army along the lines of the U.S. military. Nuclear weapons create a virtual fortress.
I started to write why I disagree, but it's pointless: I'm too ignorant to have an opinion worth offering.
I did find out that a nuke was prototyped with a yield of only ten tons, so a "nuke" could yield less explosive force than a construction site, up to a doomsday bomb. A ten-ton nuke would roughly double the explosiveness of the Rider truck in Oklahoma City, but could be carried in a Honda Civic.
So I can hardly say for certain that no nuke would have any useful tactical application. On the other hand, a nuke the size of the OK bomb would be a problem, but not the doomsday scenario folks are implying when they waver their arms about "civlians with nukes!" Any farmer can create a comparable non-nuclear explosive. I'd hardly invite Uncle Sam back into the picture to protect against such minor threats.
I think... If you can't accidently shoot yourself in the foot anywhere on your own property without your closest neighbor being injured as a result, then you can not safely own such a weapon. If you had a weapon that could blow up all of Asia that would be fine, so long as you owned all of Asia (and everyone who lived there was OK about you having such a thing). If you want to transport such a weapon then you would need consent (or at least timely announcement without objection) from every individual that would come within the shoot-yourself-in-the foot range.
I think... If you can't accidently shoot yourself in the foot anywhere on your own property without your closest neighbor being injured as a result, then you can not safely own such a weapon.
You mean, you can't safely shoot yourself in the foot. No problem owning it. The law is concerned with actual aggression, not potential aggression. Potential aggression has to be handled using contracts, voluntary (dis)association and other non-aggressive means.
ChristopherEarly:I think... If you can't accidently shoot yourself in the foot anywhere on your own property without your closest neighbor being injured as a result, then you can not safely own such a weapon.
And how are you going to stop people from owning the weapons? If you make it illegal, that would mean that only criminals would have them, if they were affordable.
Again, I think the reason individuals do not own wmd's is because they are simply too expensive and dangerous.
Len Budney: I think... If you can't accidently shoot yourself in the foot anywhere on your own property without your closest neighbor being injured as a result, then you can not safely own such a weapon. You mean, you can't safely shoot yourself in the foot. No problem owning it. The law is concerned with actual aggression, not potential aggression. Potential aggression has to be handled using contracts, voluntary (dis)association and other non-aggressive means. --Len.
To injure somebody with a gun you have to point and shoot. Guns can be accidently aimed/pointed and they can accidently shoot - tragedy happens when both of these occour, but if either the aiming or the shooting were not an accident then a criminal act occoured. Explosives are always aimed at thier own areas and therefore a criminal act is guaranteed unless they are located in such an area or in such a manner where they will only harm the owner or thier property even if accidently used. If an explosive is physically disabled, modified, or stored in such a way that they are not aimed at others then that is fine. It would not bother me if it only took less than a second to make a nuke viable, attach wires to a bomb, ect. so long as 'pulling the trigger' alone is not certain to harm another. You can't aim at me without my permission.
Minor Edit: Oh, and the courts or some other arbiter would decide if 'aiming' had occoured. I don't think anything should be specifically prohibited/monitored/enforeced. This should be more of a notice that if you had such devices then improper handling/placement could easily be considered as aiming.
In response to the original question:
I think the real question is whether nuclear/chemical weapons pose an immediate threat. Only radical statists argue that owning a firearm poses an immediate threat to those around you. Your life is not in immediate danger just because I own a weapon.
Let's change the subject for a moment: ignoring pollution, should you be allowed to light your own house on fire? What about keeping a giant open flame lit 24/7 near a neighbor's trees? Yes, both are actions happening exclusively on your property, yet they both pose an immediate risk to those around you.
I'm not sure about nuclear weapons, but my gut instinct tells me that they are an immediate threat. If I aim a loaded gun at you, you are under immediate threat as well, even if I do it from my own property.
Either way, a secondary question is this: how does you find out that someone owns a WMD?
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
ChristopherEarly: Len Budney: I think... If you can't accidently shoot yourself in the foot anywhere on your own property without your closest neighbor being injured as a result, then you can not safely own such a weapon. You mean, you can't safely shoot yourself in the foot. No problem owning it... To injure somebody with a gun you have to point and shoot...
Len Budney: I think... If you can't accidently shoot yourself in the foot anywhere on your own property without your closest neighbor being injured as a result, then you can not safely own such a weapon. You mean, you can't safely shoot yourself in the foot. No problem owning it...
You mean, you can't safely shoot yourself in the foot. No problem owning it...
To injure somebody with a gun you have to point and shoot...
Right. And you were talking about guns, not nukes. So I questioned your analogy on the basis that owning a firearm is perfectly safe, and has nothing to do with shooting oneself in the foot. This undermines your analogy, not necessarily your conclusion about nukes, though.
Explosives are always aimed at thier own areas and therefore a criminal act is guaranteed...
That's not strictly true, because you're using two different definitions of "aimed." A gun is always pointed in some direction, just as an explosive is always in some sense "pointed" at a spherical region with the bomb at the center. That's the sense in which you're saying a bomb is "aimed," but it's not the sense that "guarantees a criminal act." We gun owners always keep that distinction clear, by distinguishing clearly between aiming and pointing. "Aiming" implies intention, both legally and as a shooting term of art. "Pointing" does not. A gun can be pointed at you accidentally, but it can never be aimed at you accidentally.
Which boils down to saying, there is such a thing as an accident with a bomb.
unless they are located in such an area or in such a manner where they will only harm the owner or thier property even if accidently used.
That's a good way to reduce liability in case of accident. It corresponds to the second rule of firearm safety: never point a firearm at anything you aren't prepared to destroy.
If an explosive is physically disabled, modified, or stored in such a way that they are not aimed at others then that is fine.
Yes, that's another good way to limit liability. It corresponds to the rule (which isn't actually listed among the "Four Rules"), that firearms should be stored unloaded when not in use.
You can't aim at me without my permission.
That's dicey, put like that. Much better to say that you're entitled to treat me as a deadly threat if I point a weapon at you. That's better for a couple of reasons. First, in general only I know whether I'm pointing or aiming, so you should always say "point" rather than "aim" to give yourself the widest latitude of response. Second, it's not true that you have any control over where I point a firearm. If I'm on your land, you can make a rule and kick me off for breaking it, but if I own the gun and the property (or have the owners' permission) I can point it any way i want.
BUT, if you see me pointing a gun at you, you're fully justified in treating me as a deadly threat. You can shoot first, for example. In that sense, I certainly shouldn't "aim at you without your permission," but it's not because of any positive obligation; it's just that I don't want you to shoot me in self-defense.
This reasoning can also be extended to nukes. Suppose your neighbor has a nuke in his basement, and says, "You SOB! I'm going down to my basement and detonate Big Bertha!" Who will convict you for shooting him in self-defense? If you follow that through to its conclusion, you'll see that a man can have anything he wants in his basement, but there are very strong reasons for him to take pains to reassure you that he poses no threat.
thecapitalist: In response to the original question: I think the real question is whether nuclear/chemical weapons pose an immediate threat. Only radical statists argue that owning a firearm poses an immediate threat to those around you. Your life is not in immediate danger just because I own a weapon. Let's change the subject for a moment: ignoring pollution, should you be allowed to light your own house on fire? What about keeping a giant open flame lit 24/7 near a neighbor's trees? Yes, both are actions happening exclusively on your property, yet they both pose an immediate risk to those around you. I'm not sure about nuclear weapons, but my gut instinct tells me that they are an immediate threat. If I aim a loaded gun at you, you are under immediate threat as well, even if I do it from my own property. Either way, a secondary question is this: how does you find out that someone owns a WMD?
Good way of looking at it guys, I think I changed my mind about this.
"The plans differ; the planners are all alike"
-Bastiat