Since the true libertarian regards WMD's which target innocents as immoral weapons, even when used in self-defence. How will a stateless society prevent the proliferation of such weapons within its own territories, when theoretically any mad scientist with the brains and the capital could build such a doomsday weapon in his private laboratory?
My tentative answer is such a mad scientist, would be considered a potential aggressor and a very dangerous one and thus be unable to obtain protection from any private defence agency, and would find himself an outlaw at the mercy of anyone who decides to aggress against his person and property. Such people might be ordinary criminals, or even a lynch mob made up of concerned citizens from the local neighbourhood.
Also there is the obvious cost of building such weapons of mass destructions, that could only be built by state taxation. To build and maintain a nuclear missile system is extremely costly. A private defence agency would not own a nuclear bomb, nor would it permit any of its customers to own one as the presence of such a bomb is an indication of aggresive intent and a neighbouring state might invade the free territory on the pretext that a bomb was being developed there. (Just think of Iraq)
Does anybody else have any examples of how a free society would abolish WMD's? Anybody know of any essays/articles written on the subject?
Ostracism. His advocacy of WMD is my biggest problem with Molyneux, although I've never been a fan.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Simon Lote:Since the true libertarian regards WMD's which target innocents as immoral weapons, even when used in self-defence. How will a stateless society prevent the proliferation of such weapons within its own territories, when theoretically any mad scientist with the brains and the capital could build such a doomsday weapon in his private laboratory?
If I own a WMD I am not infringing on the rights of anyone else. I'm only an aggressor if I cause harm to others.
WMD prohibition is no different than alcohol prohibition.
Peace
Well I think a hydrogen bomb and a bottle of budweiser are different things entirely.
Although a person has a right to own a hydrogen bomb, in practice for reasons I have alluded to do above a hypothetical person who owned a bomb would essentially be boycotted from civilised society, which would be unwilling to put up with such risk.
If we outlaw WMDs then how are we to defend ourselves from the inevitable UFO invasion that will follow the abolition of government?
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
No worries, when we abolish government global warming will be so bad nobody will want to come here anyway.
Simon Lote: Since the true libertarian regards WMD's which target innocents as immoral weapons, even when used in self-defence. How will a stateless society prevent the proliferation of such weapons within its own territories, when theoretically any mad scientist with the brains and the capital could build such a doomsday weapon in his private laboratory? My tentative answer is such a mad scientist, would be considered a potential aggressor and a very dangerous one and thus be unable to obtain protection from any private defence agency, and would find himself an outlaw at the mercy of anyone who decides to aggress against his person and property. Such people might be ordinary criminals, or even a lynch mob made up of concerned citizens from the local neighbourhood. Also there is the obvious cost of building such weapons of mass destructions, that could only be built by state taxation. To build and maintain a nuclear missile system is extremely costly. A private defence agency would not own a nuclear bomb, nor would it permit any of its customers to own one as the presence of such a bomb is an indication of aggresive intent and a neighbouring state might invade the free territory on the pretext that a bomb was being developed there. (Just think of Iraq) Does anybody else have any examples of how a free society would abolish WMD's? Anybody know of any essays/articles written on the subject?
Are you under the impression that in a free society we are all going to agree on the correct course of action on any issue? I think some people will be opposed to any weapons, some people will want as many as they can get and most will be in between. It would be perfectly reasonable for a PDA to want its own WMD as a means to protect its clients from much larger and perhaps hostile forces.
WMD as related to chemical weapons isn't nearly expensive as nuclear weapons so cost may not be a deterrent.
I think the obvious problem is that very few can afford a nuclear weapon. Second, without state interference, there will be less reason for any sort of war so less use for a nuclear weapon.
There always could be a crazy person with one--but then again, why isn't there a crazy person with one right now? I'm sure there are suitcase nukes from the Soviet Union left around, someone is holding to sell to a State for major bucks. Why aren't they insane and blowing stuff up?
It's just very much a strawman in general--its such an impossibility, I think.
Walter Block has an excellent essay here that covers the issue very nicely, I think. To summarize, the posession of a weapon is legitamite only when the weapon can be "targetted" at aggressors only. Thus, keeping a 10-megaton warhead in the middle of a city is an act of aggression, while having a tactical nuke in the middle of a desert is not. The cost of insurance alone, however, will probably limit NBC ownership quite a bit.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
wombatron: Walter Block has an excellent essay here that covers the issue very nicely, I think. To summarize, the posession of a weapon is legitamite only when the weapon can be "targetted" at aggressors only. Thus, keeping a 10-megaton warhead in the middle of a city is an act of aggression, while having a tactical nuke in the middle of a desert is not. The cost of insurance alone, however, will probably limit NBC ownership quite a bit.
Targetting and storage are completely different things. Why would there be a requirement for insurance?
Just to be clear before I proceed; I have not read Walter Block's essay.
Upon reading your post, wombatron, I came to consider the following: What if you could own a WMD that was both easily assembled and dismantled, spread the "parts" in highly secure locations with regular third-party audits. Now, let us assume that the parts could be assembled within 10 minutes whenever the "target" manifests itself.
In this scenario it seems minutely possible to have low insurance costs and it wouldn't pose a threat to the general public. Thus it seems like the last hurdle is the legitimacy of believing in a "target" worthy of retaliation using a WMD; but who is to say someone must not be of such a belief? (it seems such a person would not jeopardize any rights)
I'm sorry to go into counterfactuals or trivial matters if you perceive it as such. In any case, I do not disagree with your post, it merely got me thinking
Maxliberty: wombatron: Walter Block has an excellent essay here that covers the issue very nicely, I think. To summarize, the posession of a weapon is legitamite only when the weapon can be "targetted" at aggressors only. Thus, keeping a 10-megaton warhead in the middle of a city is an act of aggression, while having a tactical nuke in the middle of a desert is not. The cost of insurance alone, however, will probably limit NBC ownership quite a bit. Targetting and storage are completely different things. Why would there be a requirement for insurance?
I would consider an assembled nuclear weapon stored in the house next to mine to be, figuratively speaking, "pointing at me".
Also, there is no requirement for insurance. Its just unlikely that anyone in a free society would deal with you if you didn't have at least basic insurance. Chaos Theory goes into that pretty well.
corpus delicti: Just to be clear before I proceed; I have not read Walter Block's essay. Upon reading your post, wombatron, I came to consider the following: What if you could own a WMD that was both easily assembled and dismantled, spread the "parts" in highly secure locations with regular third-party audits. Now, let us assume that the parts could be assembled within 10 minutes whenever the "target" manifests itself. In this scenario it seems minutely possible to have low insurance costs and it wouldn't pose a threat to the general public. Thus it seems like the last hurdle is the legitimacy of believing in a "target" worthy of retaliation using a WMD; but who is to say someone must not be of such a belief? (it seems such a person would not jeopardize any rights) I'm sorry to go into counterfactuals or trivial matters if you perceive it as such. In any case, I do not disagree with your post, it merely got me thinking
Interesting scenario. That would appear to be legitimate (although it is a continuum problem, and I'm not a court, so don't quote me ). The only problem, as you said, would be the legitimacy of actually using the weapon. If it is of a large enough yield (or similarly dangerous in another way, like bioweapons or khaki goo), I doubt that any firing of the weapon would be non-aggressive.
Now that I think about it, something similar to your scenario is may be how PDAs and militias and such choose to store their heavy artillery (tactical nukes and chemical weapons and such, anti-state weapons basically): have them dismantled, but able to be easily put together on short notice.
I don't think PDAs would have nukes, they're simply too expensive and ineffective.
Simon Lote:Well I think a hydrogen bomb and a bottle of budweiser are different things entirely.
First we can ban H bombs, then rocket launchers, then hand guns, then knifes, then sharp sticks, etc.
Things are exactly that, things, they are morally neutral.
How many individuals do you know in this last century that owned a WMD? :-P
How many governments do you know in this last century that owned a WMD?
Looks like the demand and incentive for such a weapon only exists among governments. Now you are going to say, "Well that's because we stopped anyone from owning them." Not true. Have gun bans in certain geographics ever been successful at eliminating guns? How much more unsuccessful would a worldwide WMD ban be? There truth is there is just no incentive for individuals to own one.
How many individuals do you know in this last century that have USED a WMD?
How many governments do you know in this last century that have USED a WMD?
Looks like governments should be banned from having them. Not individuals. If someone actually contributed enough to society to purchase one, that person would have no incentive to use it... unless their own government was stealing their hard-earned money and robbing their liberties... hrmmmm...
Lol. Anyway, history would indicate that lack of governments would create a lack of WMDs.
GilesStratton: I don't think PDAs would have nukes, they're simply too expensive and ineffective.
I would say that it depends on the yield, and on the degree of fallout. A low-fallout tactical nuke would be an excellent weapon against, say, an aircraft carrier, or a tank column.
JonBostwick:Things are exactly that, things, they are morally neutral.
But if that thing is a gun, and it happened to be pointed towards your head with a finger on the trigger, is the situation still morally neutral? What if the thing is a nuclear weapon, and it happens to be armed, and in the house down the street?
wombatron: JonBostwick:Things are exactly that, things, they are morally neutral. But if that thing is a gun, and it happened to be pointed towards your head with a finger on the trigger, is the situation still morally neutral?
But if that thing is a gun, and it happened to be pointed towards your head with a finger on the trigger, is the situation still morally neutral?
The thing is still morally neutral, though the action may not be.
Is owning a nuclear device the same as committing gun violence? Nope, for the same reason that owning a gun is not the same as committing gun violence.
Is operating a nuclear power plant also verboten in your world?
JonBostwick:Is owning a nuclear device the same as committing gun violence? Nope, for the same reason that owning a gun is not the same as committing gun violence.
A gun is discriminatory. It can be targetted to only harm aggressors. A nuke is a different story. In most situations, it could not be used without harming innocents. The point that I am trying to make is that possessing a nuclear weapon in a populated area is an implicit act of aggression. The Block article I linked to in a previous post explains my position better.
JonBostwick:Is operating a nuclear power plant also verboten in your world?
By no means. A nuclear power plant is not a weapon; it is not designed to kill. In fact, they are rather bad at it, when it comes down to it.
wombatron:A nuke is a different story. In most situations, it could not be used without harming innocents.
But the point I'm making is that owning a nuke is not equivalent to using it. What use of a nuke does not infringe on others you ask? Peaceful ownership comes to mind.
wombatron:A nuclear power plant is not a weapon; it is not designed to kill.
You are assigning morality to an object. What an object was designed to do is irrelevant when discussing human action. The fact that a pencil was designed to write, not to stab, is not a defense. And that a sword was designed to kill, not decorate a wall, does not detract from this peaceful use.
wombatron: In fact, they are rather bad at it, when it comes down to it.
Its a naked utilitarian argument then? The same one used to ban guns?
therealjjj77: There truth is there is just no incentive for individuals to own one.
There truth is there is just no incentive for individuals to own one.
Oh, there's plenty of incentive for individuals to own one, today. But governments are the only possible target, so yes, eliminate governments and you eliminate the incentive to own WMDs.
JonBostwick:But the point I'm making is that owning a nuke is not equivalent to using it. What use of a nuke does not infringe on others you ask? Peaceful ownership comes to mind.
It really has nothing to do with owning the nuke. If I was holding my Uzi in the middle of an uninhabited, unowned desert, I could point it wherever I pleased. However, if there was people, or their property, around me, my happening to point the gun in that direction could easily and legitamitely be considered a threat. What I am saying is that having a functional nuclear weapon around other people and their property, without their express permission, is a threat. What makes a nuke different from a gun or a knife or another weapon is that it can't be directed towards a specific target (on a human scale, that is).
wombatron:What I am saying is that having a functional nuclear weapon around other people and their property, without their express permission, is a threat.
A threat or a risk?
There may be some risk to any neighbors, but it certainly does not qualify as coercion.
If the probability of harm was high enough the neighbors would have a claim against the owner, but thats not the argument you are making. You seem to believe that the mere existence of a WMD amounts to the action of coercion, which is absurd.
wombatron: If I was holding my Uzi in the middle of an uninhabited, unowned desert, I could point it wherever I pleased.
So if you were in a city or populated area then you could not point your gun wherever you pleased. The gun and the nuclear weapon are the same. Both have the ability to kill innocents when misused. You have the right to have them both.
However, I am much more likely to take action against someone building a nuclear weapon in their basement if I think they are doing so with the purpose of using it against innocents. The reason being is I have a much greater chance of minimizing the damage one maniac might do with a gun but a nuclear detonation is a different story.
Thanks for the article, I do not think the risk of the nuclear bomb is not a good argument in itself. Simply defining 'risk' as a reason to ban something often leads a back door to tyranny.
However lets say my hypothetical mob broke into the mad scientists house and stole the H-Bomb from under his feet. He then appealed to the local arbitration agency for justice. When the court date arrives the mob might well mount a defence that there action was a result of provocation. The proffesional jurors would retire into a backroom and consider whether such possesion was indeed provocative taking into account the inviduals mental state and motivation for owning a WMD. They might well deliver a verict as justifiable theft in self-defence and declare the mob innocent of the accused crime.
This creates 3 main ideas why WMD's would not exist in our free society (or be very much restricted to say defence against alien invasion) namely, the right of exlusion (boycott), the inability to purchase insurance for a weapon which is by its very nature aggressive and the likelyhood that any arbitration agency would rule such a weapon a physical threat in much the same way somone pointing a gun at ones face is illegal.
Simon Lote:I do not think the risk of the nuclear bomb is not a good argument in itself. Simply defining 'risk' as a reason to ban something often leads a back door to tyranny.
You misunderstand.
Imagine your neighbor has a tree with dead branches that hang over your garage. It is virtually inevitable that these branches will eventually fall and damage your property. You have the right to demand that your neighbor trim his tree. If he refuses to do so you can do it yourself and bill your neighbor.
The branches are a hazard, which must be removed, even if they have not yet caused actual harm.
Simon Lote:and the likelyhood that any arbitration agency would rule such a weapon a physical threat in much the same way somone pointing a gun at ones face is illegal.
As I've pointed out continuously, this is a false analogy. Pointing a gun at someone is an act while a nuke is a thing. Saying that the nuke points itself at everything is as ridiculous as saying that a gun points itself at anything.
JonBostwick:As I've pointed out continuously, this is a false analogy. Pointing a gun at someone is an act while a nuke is a thing. Saying that the nuke points itself at everything is as ridiculous as saying that a gun points itself at anything.
Possessing a nuke, however, is also an act. And how is it ridiculous to say that a nuke points at everything? It does "point" at everything within the area that would be effected by the detonation.
wombatron: JonBostwick:As I've pointed out continuously, this is a false analogy. Pointing a gun at someone is an act while a nuke is a thing. Saying that the nuke points itself at everything is as ridiculous as saying that a gun points itself at anything. Possessing a nuke, however, is also an act. And how is it ridiculous to say that a nuke points at everything? It does "point" at everything within the area that would be effected by the detonation.
A gun is always pointed at something as well. Bombs or explosives are also outlawed under your thinking.
wombatron: Possessing a nuke, however, is also an act.
Possessing a nuke, however, is also an act.
Good. Possession is one act, use is a separate act.
wombatron:And how is it ridiculous to say that a nuke points at everything? It does "point" at everything within the area that would be effected by the detonation.
You ignored my analogy and restated the original assertion.
If I hang my gun on the wall is that the same thing as pointing it at my neighbors house, even if that is the direction the barrel is pointing?
If I find out that my neighbor is building a nuclear tactical weapon I have at least two choices:
a) get the hell out of the area before it blows
b) do something about it
There're going to be quite a few people pissed with the "made scientist's" plans. Having nuke around lowers the value of real estate, doesn't it? Since private defense agencies are not likely to cover the crazy nuke builders (knowingly, that is) s/he will be in a vulnerable position when these folk come to convince him that they'd really prefer to keep the value of their properties from falling. All very peacefully, of course ;)
Now, if someone wants to conduct experiments somewhere in the desert far away from other living souls... with the prior notice, of course... would anyone even care?
If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
Natalie: If I find out that my neighbor is building a nuclear tactical weapon I have at least two choices: a) get the hell out of the area before it blows b) do something about it There're going to be quite a few people pissed with the "made scientist's" plans. Having nuke around lowers the value of real estate, doesn't it? Since private defense agencies are not likely to cover the crazy nuke builders (knowingly, that is) s/he will be in a vulnerable position when these folk come to convince him that they'd really prefer to keep the value of their properties from falling. All very peacefully, of course ;) Now, if someone wants to conduct experiments somewhere in the desert far away from other living souls... with the prior notice, of course... would anyone even care?
What if it's not the mad scientist. Suppose it's a munitions factory. Is that outlawed as well?
I agree with you that I am not going to allow anyone I deem as a maniac to have nuclear weapons near me. That doesn't mean I universally rule out the possibility of private groups having nuclear weapons.
No country with a nuclear weapon has ever been invaded. The only 'countries' to ever use them have been those with massive governments inlcuding those supposedly 'civilised' (democratic!) ones, which just shows how completely brainwashed people are into thinking governments actually protect people, when it's quite the extreme opposite. Only governments use nukes and start wars, or provoke others unjustly into them, not ordinary everyday groups of people. It's what happens when you have a massive, monopolistic criminal gang in charge of an entire nation's economy and social structure.
So really the ultimate deterrent for nuclear warfare is nuclear warfare. Noone would be mad enough to use one if there is even the slightest potential for retaliation. We can't live our entire lives worried about what ifs and maybes, else we'd never even leave the house or get out of bed. This is the kind of paranoid fearful state of mind governments feed upon like a parasite, like religious cults which have to scare you and beat you down before bringing you back to the "light" and "love" of their [insert name of saint like figure here]. It's just a giant scam.
Nuclear war is used as yet another propagandist fear mechanism - to gain more state power; terrorists! paedophiles! global warming! global cooling! global dimming! acid rain! mad cows! SARS! etc etc etc.... the hooomons are EVIL! So we must put (the same supposedly evil) people in charge of... the people... to stop... the people from... ripping themselves to pieces!!!
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=QF5tAxAmC_M - "All media scares in three breaths..."
Fin
fingolfin:No country with a nuclear weapon has ever been invaded.
And?
Nukes stop nukes.
Dont get me wrong, I want the US government to unilaterally nuclear disarm. I just take issue with the calls for prohibition.
fingolfin: Nukes stop nukes.
So, because it's never happened it never can happen?
No, but we do have to look to historical evidence for wild claims about imminent nucleur warfare or the like. It is *possible* that a maniac is waiting outside my house, right now, to blow me up. Unlikely, but possible. However, I don't spend my time worrying about it because there is no evidence to support the hypothesis, it is logically unsound and statistically unlikely, etc.
Likewise it is *possible* that a maniac (most likely working in government!) might one day in the future actually use a nucleur weapon against a populace - but historically and logically speaking it is highly unlikely and, if not, there is little we could do about it anyway. So why worry? The strongest incentive against use is itself universal nucleur armament. Of course I'm not saying I'm all for nukes, but you must admit it is a truly magnificent paradox that the most vile and destructive weaponry ever produced may unexpectedly, also manifest as a solution for bringing about relative global peace and stability.
I am almost certain that if Lebanon, Iraq or Afghanistan had openly possessed nucleur arms, no military invasion would ever have occurred. This is much of the current hoo-haa surrounding Iran, in my opinion. Does that clarify my position?
The possesion of nuclear weapons by responsible parties, like their possesion by responsible governments today is not really a problem. But it is interesting to note how irresponsible governments use nuclear technology. Regimes like North Korea and Iran use the threat of nuclear weapons to extract bribes and other benefits from civilized countries, while countries like Pakistan have been caught selling their technology to the highest bidder. Maybe we should not expect a simple or safe solution to the threat of nuclear weapons in the wrong hands - but surely markets can deal with that problem better than governments do now.
HeroicLife: The possesion of nuclear weapons by responsible parties, like their possesion by responsible governments today is not really a problem.
The possesion of nuclear weapons by responsible parties, like their possesion by responsible governments today is not really a problem.
You have to be kidding me. Tell me you're kidding me?!!
HeroicLife: Regimes like North Korea and Iran use the threat of nuclear weapons to extract bribes and other benefits from civilized countries...
Regimes like North Korea and Iran use the threat of nuclear weapons to extract bribes and other benefits from civilized countries...
Civilised countries... ?!
HeroicLife: ...but surely markets can deal with that problem better than governments do now.
...but surely markets can deal with that problem better than governments do now.
Agreed.