Reading the 2nd Amendment, I take it to mean that no arm should be withheld from the individual since it would be unconstitutional. I invariably run into the retort: "then individuals should have to be allowed to have nukes, chemical weapons, and biological weapons too".
The libertarian response might be "damn right!" asserting that there are more instances where countries have used these types of weapons against individuals rather than individuals against other individuals.
Other 2nd Amendment proponents might simply dismiss the argument as rhetoric without giving any rationale as to why one is allowed and not the other.
Usually, arguments against the 2nd Amendment claim that when it was written, arms couldn't kill more than one or two people in an instant and that the framers didn't have the foresight to envision our advanced weaponry when they wrote it. I find this argument hard to swallow too.
I really don't think anyone here would feel comfortable with their next door neighbor owning a nuke, sarin, or anthrax. On the other hand, how does this not go against the 2nd Amendment, and if this should be an exception, why not full-automatic weapons?
I have my own thoughts on this, but I was curious to see what others here would think.
Ryan
What if your neighbour owns AIDS... in his blood?! Oh, nevermind, that already happens.
Do you know how long and complex is to make a nuke? All the infra-structure that is required? Well, if someone can mine uranium, than build his own super tech centrifuger to proccess the uranium til it reachs a 95% of U-235, then this person deserves his nuke.
Thanks Vitor, now is there any response from someone who read my post?
who gives a damn about amendments? we have rights without amendments.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
nirgrahamUK: who gives a damn about amendments? we have rights without amendments.
WHAT? Your copy of the constitution doesn't have fangs?
Why would anyone waste time, resourses and knowledge on the creation of weapons that are inacurate (in the sense of self defence) and also dangerous, expensive and hard to maintain and fire? Not to mention the possibility on killing him/herlself in the preocess of making, maintaining or firing it.
What good are those rights if no one cares about them?
what good is your question if people do care about their rights?
This post assumes the constitution is relevant in some way.
Ryan Magnon:Reading the 2nd Amendment,
How is the 2nd Amendment relevant to anything? I never signed the Constitution of the United States government.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Is there a natural right for the individual to possess a WMD?
Shakaman: Why would anyone waste time, resourses and knowledge on the creation of weapons that are inacurate (in the sense of self defence) and also dangerous, expensive and hard to maintain and fire? Not to mention the possibility on killing him/herlself in the preocess of making, maintaining or firing it.
To kill other people.
Ryan Magnon:Is there a natural right for the individual to possess a WMD?
Absolutely.
liberty student: Ryan Magnon:Is there a natural right for the individual to possess a WMD? Absolutely.
What would you say to someone who's doesn't want to remove restrictions on WMDs for fear of a Sarin attack like they had in Tokyo or a dirty bomb attack like in Russia? I know the fact that they happened is proof restrictions don't always work, but it's still a tough sell.
Ok then lets assume they want to kill (other) people.
To get all the necessary equipment is very hard. The people needed to operate/build it and even the material itself to go from raw material into a ready to use bomb is a long and an advanced road. I don't see how the person(s) is gona avoid going socially suicide as not most people would not feel comfortable with the notion of suppling people with material to a bomb that they have no idea where and when it's gona go off. Not to mention the neighbors or the target in questions find out they are probobally gona come and ask questions, or shoot you on sight.
Ryan Magnon:What would you say to someone who's doesn't want to remove restrictions on WMDs for fear of a Sarin attack like they had in Tokyo or a dirty bomb attack like in Russia? I know the fact that they happened is proof restrictions don't always work, but it's still a tough sell.
I would say laws do not stop criminals from getting weapons.
Why would anyone want any kind of a Weapon of Mass Destruction? By the very nature of the term--and the nature of the weapon itself--WMDs serve no defensive purpose.
By asking the question "What do libertarians think about owning WMDs?", of course the answer is going to be: "Yes". The individuall is free to pursue whatever goals s/he sets for themself so long as they do not infringe upon the freedoms of other individuals.
I would like to think that in a truly free society, however, we shall also have freed ourselves of the need for things that serve no constructive purpose. WMDs fit into that category.
"All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree." -James Madison
"If government were efficient, it would cease to exist."
Ryan Magnon:What would you say to someone who's doesn't want to remove restrictions on WMDs for fear of a Sarin attack like they had in Tokyo or a dirty bomb attack like in Russia?
There are thousands of ways to kill people. No one has the moral authority to prohibit anyone else from property. The world is not a safe place, which is why we have to be intelligent about our own defense, families and communities.
Amen.
The development of WMDs is the greatest hope for world peace. Nothing evens up the odds in large scale conflict like WMDs. It is the ulitimate deterent against aggressive states. It opens up the possiblilty for small groups of people, organizations, and small states to be able to effectively defend themselves against aggressive states. In the same way that hand guns make violent crime impractical, WMDs make total war impractical. The fact that the US Federal government restricts domestic gun rights indicates its totalitarian ambitions. The fact that it tries to enforce the nuclear nonproliferation treaty indicates its imperial ambitions.
Stephen Forde: The development of WMDs is the greatest hope for world peace.
The development of WMDs is the greatest hope for world peace.
I see one hole in your theory, this only works with mutual destruction! If lets say either side doesn't care if they die your screwed.
Shakaman: Stephen Forde: The development of WMDs is the greatest hope for world peace. I see one hole in your theory, this only works with mutual destruction! If lets say either side doesn't care if they die your screwed.
Give me an example of one 20th century leader who would fit the bill.
I could see some use of WMDs (including nuclear) in a free society as a means of defense against foreign invasion.
If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
Ryan Magnon:I invariably run into the retort: "then individuals should have to be allowed to have nukes, chemical weapons, and biological weapons too".
To which I would respond, you are correct human beings should not own nuclear weapons, so take away the nuclear weapons and submarines of the state. :)
Spideynw: I would say laws do not stop criminals from getting weapons.
And the retort might sound something like "Laws don't stop theft and murder either, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be illegal".
I've seen many posts in this thread that say something to the effect of "it's too hard to get/make a WMD". The reason I hadn't followed up on these is because If history is any indication, there will be new WMDs made, and it'll get cheaper and easier to make existing ones. My point isn't to discuss how practical it is to get a WMD, because this might only be relevant to our own time. Instead, I asked "should an individual be able to possess a WMD?", since this question will be relevant until the day they are obsolete.
I like that point of view, but the argument against that would be this: Assuming you have one free state unwilling to own them, and other's seeking empire willing to possess nukes and subs, the free state will be dominated.
I don't know if you're simply pointing out how things should be, but if so, what would you suggest in the meantime?
Ryan Magnon: Spideynw: I would say laws do not stop criminals from getting weapons. And the retort might sound something like "Laws don't stop theft and murder either, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be illegal".
And my rebuttal would be that the purpose of law is not to control behavior, but to resolve disputes. Since murder and theft involve victims, they should be illegal, since there is a dispute. Owning a WMD does not involve a victim, as such there is no dispute, and so it should not be illegal.
No, no individual - even if he calls himself a state - has the right to own nukes or similar, for the simple reason that there is no way to justify such a right, according to libertarian principles. It should be as illegal as killing innocent people, taxation and murder.
The reason is simple; it´s not reasonable to own a nuke; just as it´s shouldn´t be legal to have the ´right´to point at someone with a gun while saying the words ´Your money or your life´. Just as in both cases there is no actual agression against ´property rights´, it is a violation of rights. Libertarianism is a philosophy of reason - e.g. argumentation ethics, rothbards theory of rights in the ethics of liberty, etc. - not a game in which the most radical person can make his point.
The moment someone can justify the reasonableness of nukes - thus the reasonableness of them being able to be used without a heavy threat towards innocent people - then I would consider them justified. Untill them; they ought to be illegal.
The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.
Spideynw:And my rebuttal would be that the purpose of law is not to control behavior, but to resolve disputes. Since murder and theft involve victims, they should be illegal, since there is a dispute. Owning a WMD does not involve a victim, as such there is no dispute, and so it should not be illegal.
That definition really does not cut it, for it serves no guideline in what should be used to guide disputes. People could have a dispute on the colour of your t-shirt; therefore we need a philosophy of right to solve these disputes.
AdrianHealey: Spideynw:And my rebuttal would be that the purpose of law is not to control behavior, but to resolve disputes. Since murder and theft involve victims, they should be illegal, since there is a dispute. Owning a WMD does not involve a victim, as such there is no dispute, and so it should not be illegal. That definition really does not cut it, for it serves no guideline in what should be used to guide disputes. People could have a dispute on the colour of your t-shirt; therefore we need a philosophy of right to solve these disputes.
Well, of course, the only reason there is a dispute is if a right has been violated.
AdrianHealey: No, no individual - even if he calls himself a state - has the right to own nukes or similar, for the simple reason that there is no way to justify such a right, according to libertarian principles. It should be as illegal as killing innocent people, taxation and murder. The reason is simple; it´s not reasonable to own a nuke; just as it´s shouldn´t be legal to have the ´right´to point at someone with a gun while saying the words ´Your money or your life´. Just as in both cases there is no actual agression against ´property rights´, it is a violation of rights. Libertarianism is a philosophy of reason - e.g. argumentation ethics, rothbards theory of rights in the ethics of liberty, etc. - not a game in which the most radical person can make his point. The moment someone can justify the reasonableness of nukes - thus the reasonableness of them being able to be used without a heavy threat towards innocent people - then I would consider them justified. Untill them; they ought to be illegal.
I agree cause I only see nukes as a scientific threat to innocent people. The only reason I could see a nuke as not a threat is if it was for shooting into space. maybe... maybe not. Even their fall-out can harm innocents far away if detonated on earth and not far enough into the sky. Pacific islands are harmful to innocent people if they would happen to come close to them due to nuclear testing that happens decades ago. I would state this is similar to leaving mines in a field, especially after a war is over, but during a war it gets nitty-gritty, meaning, it depends. I thought this Walter Block article was good. I'm sure this debate will go on for the time being though, no doubt.
AdrianHealey:No, no individual - even if he calls himself a state - has the right to own nukes or similar, for the simple reason that there is no way to justify such a right, according to libertarian principles.
You think making it illegal to own WMDs will stop people from owning them?
AdrianHealey:It should be as illegal as killing innocent people, taxation and murder.
All of those involve victims. Owning a WMD does not. So no, it should not be illegal.
AdrianHealey:The reason is simple; it´s not reasonable to own a nuke;
The reason that people should be able to own a nuke is just as simple, it is reasonable.
AdrianHealey:just as it´s shouldn´t be legal to have the ´right´to point at someone with a gun while saying the words ´Your money or your life´.
Again, you compare one act that has a victim to one that does not. Yes, extortion should be illegal. Whether one is threatening with a gun or WMD is irrelevant.
AdrianHealey:ust as in both cases there is no actual agression against ´property rights´,
The one is aggression, the other is not.
AdrianHealey:it is a violation of rights.
Nope, no rights are violated if someone owns a WMD, just like no rights are violated if someone owns a gun.
AdrianHealey:Libertarianism is a philosophy of reason - e.g. argumentation ethics, rothbards theory of rights in the ethics of liberty, etc. - not a game in which the most radical person can make his point.
You seem to be the one without reason here.
AdrianHealey:The moment someone can justify the reasonableness of nukes - thus the reasonableness of them being able to be used without a heavy threat towards innocent people - then I would consider them justified.
Then how do you justify any weapon? You think innocent people cannot be killed by a gun or knife or metal ball?
AdrianHealey:Untill them; they ought to be illegal.
How about you put your reasoning cap on instead.
wilderness:I agree cause I only see nukes as a threat to innocent people.
So you think laws stop criminals? Or do they just stop law abiding citizens?
i edited my post... what do you think?
wilderness: i edited my post... what do you think?
It still seems to me that you think they should be illegal. To which I still ask do you think laws will stop criminals from getting their greedy little hands on them?
Don't get me wrong, I think WMD's, if used, are awful. But that does not change the fact that they exist. It also does not change the fact that no two nations that have nuclear weapons have gone to war so far. I myself think they are the greatest invention of all time and hope that every nation on earth, sooner rather than later, gets them.
Spideynw: wilderness: i edited my post... what do you think? It still seems to me that you think they should be illegal. To which I still ask do you think laws will stop criminals from getting their greedy little hands on them?
I think the space issue debunked my initial case. So it's now difficult to say if nukes are illegal or not. Geography is the determining factor for me. If a nuke goes off on earth or near earth, then it will kill innocents. Therefore in that instance it is always a threat, it is always a loaded gun in everybody's face. But if it goes off in space far enough away from earth, then it's possible no innocents will die. A gun in the face of a person is the same as a nuclear weapon only to be used on earth. Both threats and both do not need to be waited upon ignition for prosecution to happen.
Spideynw: Don't get me wrong, I think WMD's, if used, are awful. But that does not change the fact that they exist. It also does not change the fact that no two nations that have nuclear weapons have gone to war so far.
Don't get me wrong, I think WMD's, if used, are awful. But that does not change the fact that they exist. It also does not change the fact that no two nations that have nuclear weapons have gone to war so far.
the robber using his or her weapon doesn't have to fire it to get your money either...
Spideynw: I myself think they are the greatest invention of all time and hope that every nation on earth, sooner rather than later, gets them.
I myself think they are the greatest invention of all time and hope that every nation on earth, sooner rather than later, gets them.
well, I can't necessarily see how they can be made absolutely illegal, thus, I don't see a natural law here against them. If something else would happen to come along, a better argument, just like for anything, my knowledge might change and thus the situation might change, but for now I agree with you.
Spideynw:You seem to be the one without reason here.
So you can argue like a Rothbardian; but can you add a new argument? Because the whole ´you are not really attacking, thus therefore you should be able to have it´ is the point I was attacking. You obviously found it not to your satisfaction; granted. Repeating stuff and adding a few insults doesn´t really do the trick.
The Walter Block article changed my mind on the case, indeed. The pure having of a nuclear weapon is, in my eyes, no different from pointing a gun at someone´s head 24/7, even if you are not really saying anything to would be considered a threat.
doesn't space detract from a geographical argument though?