Let's say there is a weapon that can kill immediately anyone on the planet if you just say their name and address. Let's call this weapon - IKill. Let's also assume that it is extremely difficult to protect yourself from such a weapon (as it is difficult to protect oneself against biological weapons for example).
According to most anarcho-capitalists, nuclear weapons are by their nature non discriminatory and therefore should be banned, however IKill is 100% discriminatory, yet it means every person on planet lives at a point of a gun from being murdered by a psychopath or an adversary who wields an IKill.
Do you think IKill should be banned in a free society, if so then how do you justify it?
Thank you.
The minute you ban something the society is no longer free. Some agent has to use force to perform the prohibition. That capability exists right now, the US President can order the murder of anyone he wishes at any time for any reason inside or outside of the USA using special operations forces or drones.
Any agent in a free society will be able to destroy IKill or nuclear bombs if they want to, just as every agent in a free society can kill a murderer if the family of the victim gave consent.
Since when did AnCaps want to ban anything?
I think IKill should come with a safety. It's a little bit ridicilous for a weapon like that to be without a safety. A tiny keypad and a PIN code, whaddaya say?
First, look up past threads on nuclear weapons. They're not banned in all cases. In fact, I may be rethinking some of my previous ideas on them.
Second, I think this weapon should be illegal to own, because of the pointed gun scenario.
Whats the pointed gun scenario?
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
A gun is legal. Pointing it at a random person is illegal. Why? Pointing it is a threat. What constitutes a threat? A reasonable realistic 3D scenario which endangers others. Thus, pointing a gun at the sky and shooting is generally not a threat. Hence, the use of a gun is inherently not illegitimate. Now consider nuclear weapons. What is a reasonable realistic 3D scenario which would constitute a threat? Anything. There is no “pointing” of nuclear weapons. If you are in the middle of a mall with a gun and you want to threaten others you can 1) whip it out and point it 2) Yell “I will kill you all” We all know scenario 2 is illegal anyway. Scenario 1: How would this apply with nuclear weapons? It can’t. There is no whipping out of a nuclear weapon. Because with guns, to create a threat you aim. With nuclear weapons, there is no aiming. The reasonable 3D idea of a threat flies out of the window with nuclear weapons, because their existence is a threat due to their nature of not being able to be contained. It’s like carrying a gun sphere, where there is a gun pointing out at every direction. By carrying it around in public, you are inherently aiming at everyone you walk by. Thus, the existence of a nuclear weapon such that people involuntarily live within its blast radius is illegal. This means that you can own nuclear weapons on Mars if you’d like, or on the Moon, or in Australia if you own all of it. Yet as soon as you bring it within blast radius of people, it becomes a threat and is illegal.
A gun is legal. Pointing it at a random person is illegal. Why? Pointing it is a threat. What constitutes a threat? A reasonable realistic 3D scenario which endangers others.
Thus, pointing a gun at the sky and shooting is generally not a threat. Hence, the use of a gun is inherently not illegitimate.
Now consider nuclear weapons. What is a reasonable realistic 3D scenario which would constitute a threat? Anything. There is no “pointing” of nuclear weapons.
If you are in the middle of a mall with a gun and you want to threaten others you can 1) whip it out and point it 2) Yell “I will kill you all”
We all know scenario 2 is illegal anyway.
Scenario 1: How would this apply with nuclear weapons? It can’t. There is no whipping out of a nuclear weapon. Because with guns, to create a threat you aim. With nuclear weapons, there is no aiming.
The reasonable 3D idea of a threat flies out of the window with nuclear weapons, because their existence is a threat due to their nature of not being able to be contained. It’s like carrying a gun sphere, where there is a gun pointing out at every direction. By carrying it around in public, you are inherently aiming at everyone you walk by.
Thus, the existence of a nuclear weapon such that people involuntarily live within its blast radius is illegal. This means that you can own nuclear weapons on Mars if you’d like, or on the Moon, or in Australia if you own all of it. Yet as soon as you bring it within blast radius of people, it becomes a threat and is illegal.
http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/26111/436702.aspx#436702
The problem with that scenario is that merely pointing a gun in someones direction isnt necessarily a threat.
If i point a gun at your face but i accidentally do it, or i point it at your face because i want you to check if the barrel is clean, if that a threat?
Hence which is why pointing a gun AND yelling im going to ATTACK you all is a threat, and merely pointing a gun isnt.
But having a gun and NOT pointing it at someone but posessing it for DEFENSE is it still a threat? Can there be something such as a negative or a positive threat?
Which leads to nukes.
Having a nuke i dont think is necessarily a threat, but having a nuke AND possessing it with the intention to ATTACK someone IS.
But having a nuke but posessing it to DEFEND yourself (still killing, but depending on the justification of why you want to kill) is it still a threat? Surely it is a threat but is it an aggressive threat?
Thus having an ikill is not necessarily bad, it is with the intention of WHY you posess one (for defense or to aggress?).
Its just like the saying, Guns dont kill people, people kill people.
If one is carrying a concealed weapon, and he points a gun at someone under his jacket, but no one knows he is pointing it (but no one sees), is that person still pointing a weapon at a person?
If a man yells while in a forest, but no one hears it, did that man still yell?
This is actually a real problem when you're in a crowded city. Praxeological law tells us that what goes up must come down.
thats good troll
Sure, but I hope you understand what I was saying beyond the literal level
pointing a loaded gun at someone is always a threat, no matter what the intention of the gun holder. the gun holder is responsible for every bullet, whether or not the bullet was intended to be fired, whether or not the bullet hit the intended target. the holder of a weapon is reaponsible for the consequences of the weapons usage.
"if a man does X...., did he do X"? yes
Have you watched Death Note? The plot is in a way quite similar to what you are proposing. Great anime serie.
Yes, and no one can tell him to shut up.
Malachi:Guns are cool, because you can avoid pointing them at anyone. Explosives create area damage, so in order to avoid threatening people with explosives, you have to keep them a certain distance away from people and their property. Elsewise, when something happens, you are liable and no one knows what those crazy anarchists wil do, chop your arms and legs off, whatever, you dont want to be liable. So theres a safety radius associated with area weapons that determines how near you may bring them to other people's property.
That's some great reasoning, thanks.
kelvin_silva:The problem with that scenario is that merely pointing a gun in someones direction isnt necessarily a threat.
It would still qualify as an assault. That's all you need.
kelvin_silva:If i point a gun at your face but i accidentally do it, or i point it at your face because i want you to check if the barrel is clean, if that a threat?
No but it could very well be assault. It is threatening.
kelvin_silva:Hence which is why pointing a gun AND yelling im going to ATTACK you all is a threat, and merely pointing a gun isnt.
All you need for assault is to be placed in a state of fear for your person, accident or on purpose, and without even the need for movement. It could be proximity, a look, etc.
I'd say having a gun pointed at you can reasonably cause fear for your life. So would living in proximity to someone storing enough explosives to destroy your property and person.
kelvin_silva:Which leads to nukes. Having a nuke i dont think is necessarily a threat, but having a nuke AND possessing it with the intention to ATTACK someone IS.
Living within radius of the stored nuke would certainly be scary for many people.
Dylan of Rivia: Have you watched Death Note? The plot is in a way quite similar to what you are proposing. Great anime serie.
Yeah, I thought of the same thing. The OP's scenario is precisely the premise of Death Note :D And it's a fantastic story. Kid has a book that will kill anyone in the world whose name he writes in it. So he starts killing off all the criminals 'round the world...