Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Nuclear Weapons in the Stateless society

rated by 0 users
This post has 5 Replies | 3 Followers

Not Ranked
Male
Posts 35
Points 1,260
Sam29 Posted: Tue, Jul 19 2011 3:34 PM

Ok, so how would the stateless society handle some super rich psycho scientist who cultivates land in the Mojave desert and builds nuclear weapons for the sole purpose of destruction? I was asked this today, and I had an answer that applies only if said scientist purchased the land he is using. If he purchased it, the sales contract would contain a clause prohibiting violence or mass violence, under penalty of eviction, death, etc. But if he cultivates the "virgin land" (i.e Rothbard) himself, how would we in the stateless society prevent him from causing destruction?

Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,417
Points 41,720
Moderator
Nielsio replied on Tue, Jul 19 2011 3:43 PM

There is some lenghty discussion about the topic here:

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/16041.aspx

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,118
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Your question at the begining of your post is completely different from the question at the end of your post.

For the first question: Who knows? If anyone one of knew the future, then we would be extrememly rich. Also, it's kinda like asking: In a stateless society what the be width of a sidewalk?

Second question: Perhaps nothing. No one has figured out a way to prevent all crime at all times.

To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process.
Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!"
Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Tue, Jul 19 2011 3:48 PM

Nuclear weapons are so destructive that I doubt anyone would want to own one "in the clear" because the insurance costs would be simply astronomical. This leaves people owning nuclear weapons "underground" and I think that the ground rule would be "if you own a nuclear weapon, it can be disarmed by anyone who wants to disarm it and they're probably not going to bear any liability for property damage they do in the process." In other words, owning and hiding a nuclear weapon can be considered a universal threat against anyone and everyone. So, we could have a charity that hires mercenaries and hunts down - with impunity - mad scientists trying to build nukes or rich, misanthropic sociopaths trying to buy them. I can see no reason an arbitrator would interpret the ownership of a nuclear weapon as anything other than a threat against anyone and everyone. It has no conceivable defensive purpose.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 312
Points 4,310
Chyd3nius replied on Tue, Jul 19 2011 4:56 PM

I see vast markets for nuclear defence.

-- --- English I not so well sorry I will. I'm not native speaker.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,209
Points 35,645
Merlin replied on Tue, Jul 19 2011 5:19 PM

 

Well, let’s not beat around the bush.

If John, a well-known wacko, would be known to poses nukes, he’d find that/those nukes stolen from him by PDAs. All would know, none would admit it. A clear breach of the NAP, but so what?

Who’d allow such PDAs to steal form him? Who’d certify John’s “wackiness”, as opposed to that of Tim, a businessman who also has nukes? Professional conscience, like it develops in any profession. Nothing more, nothing less. Practically, this is how I see it working.

Keep in mind that this will not ensure that no nuke will ever be set off by some wacko (or that everyone but John will agree on John seeing his nukes stolen). But I’ll take the occasional massacre over statism (statelessness is impossible in a non-nuclear age) any day. 

The Regression theorem is a memetic equivalent of the Theory of Evolution. To say that the former precludes the free emergence of fiat currencies makes no more sense that to hold that the latter precludes the natural emergence of multicellular organisms.
  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (6 items) | RSS