What do people think?
Does the right to do what you want on your own property stop at your country's border, or should we trust the market to do the right thing and allow Iran to do as they choose?
Additionally, does a private company within your own country have the right to develop nuclear weapons on their own property?
In both cases we can assume that they claim they only want them for defence purposes and have no intention of hurting anybody else.
Countries/governments do not have rights. The people do. I don't think they actually want nuclear weapons however, they would probably prefer some farming equipment.
Honestly? Nuclear weapons should not exist period.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
granrojo:Additionally, does a private company within your own country have the right to develop nuclear weapons on their own property?
A hundred times Yes
Taras Smereka: Countries/governments do not have rights. The people do. I don't think they actually want nuclear weapons however, they would probably prefer some farming equipment.
Countries and governments are organisations made up of people. Like it or not they are democratically elected. But even so, if a private individual wants to develop nuclear weapons within Iran, should they be allowed to?
Also, I don't think Iran has any shortage of farming equipment. They are an incredibly rich country due to their oil reserves. The problem they have is UN sanctions do not allow them to trade effectively with the rest of the world.
Libertyandlife: Honestly? Nuclear weapons should not exist period.
But they do. Without the technology we would also have no nuclear power and have to continue our reliance on fossil fuels.
granrojo: Countries and governments are organisations made up of people. Like it or not they are democratically elected.
Countries and governments are organisations made up of people. Like it or not they are democratically elected.
A lifeboat situation is a specie of the logical fallacy of isolation.
Does the US have the right to nuclear weapons?
Taras Smereka:Countries/governments do not have rights. The people do. I don't think they actually want nuclear weapons however, they would probably prefer some farming equipment.
That's a nice theoretical answer. However the reality is there's a group of likely nut jobs getting closer and closer to being able to evaporate major cities. Now I whole heartedly agree with a non intervention policy and think an ideal world would be purely anarcho capitalist. However complete and total military disengagement with the world after previous administrations have spent a good century pissing people off might not be the best path. The real question is what would be a policy to follow in the framework of a draw down of troops and overseas presence/intervention that would best appease the most angry nutters while addressing the very real risk of attack that our 'afore mentioned 'leaders' have exposed us to. Mises' statement about what you replace a fire with doesn't mean there aren't varying degrees of effective means for extinguishing a particular fire. Immediate pull out isn't necessarily the best option. And whatever your position on whether or not governments have rights or not, it's not the only relevant and hardly the most immediate concern vis a vi whether or not I'mADinnerJacket and his superiors in Iran have the ability to nuke cities.
Groups are abstractions. If anyone has rights, it can only be individuals.
As for worrying about nuclear war... Within a few minutes after the first clumsy attempt to use a nuke on any ally of the US, the entire country of origin will probably be given one warning before being carpet-nuked. If a second nuke is ever used, the entire Middle East will be wiped off the map before it even hits the news, and maybe North Korea also for good measure. I suspect heads of state don't like the idea of nuclear war any more than we do.
Why anarchy fails
Rothbard says that possession of WMDs is effectively aggression, as they have no purpose but taking life. I agree with that assertion. The hell does anyone need a nuclear weapon for? Not just Iran, but any country.
Periodically the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
Thomas Jefferson
Wanderer:Rothbard says that possession of WMDs is effectively aggression, as they have no purpose but taking life.
All weapons have essentially no purpose but taking life. Even while one can wound someone with a weapon like a 9mm pistol very easily without killing them, I would argue that such use is secondary, and that the primary purpose of that weapon is still to take life. Once one moves on to rifles, it is becomes nigh impossible to argue that their primary purpose is not taking life. Furthermore, it does not follow that having weapon like a fully automatic AK-47, which is a definitely a killing not a wounding gun, is aggression just because its purpose is nothing other than taking life because, in self-defense, it is often necessary to have no other purpose than to kill one's attacker if conditions dictate it.
As a result, by analogy, I do not believe that Rothbard gives a good reason for the possession of WMDs being immoral. However, I do agree that the intuition of his argument is definitely right, but I would personally focus on the fact that WMDs often have too large of a effective killing radius to be able to efficiently differentiate between civilians, and non-civilians thus breaking a condition of a just war that all measures must be taken to minimize civilian deaths. Nevertheless, I do not believe my assertion outright bans the holding of WMDs, though it is hard to justifying having weapons of the power of hydrogen bombs.
Wanderer:The hell does anyone need a nuclear weapon for?
This can have quite the slippery slope result.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
granrojo:But even so, if a private individual wants to develop nuclear weapons within Iran, should they be allowed to?
Legally, of course. Law based on whether or not something (notice I did not say "someone") is a threat to others is completely arbitrary. No one has a right to not be scared. Otherwise, planting a tree that might fall on my neighbor's house could be considered illegal.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
granrojo:Does the right to do what you want on your own property stop at your country's border,
One's right to do with his or her property stops at his or her property boundaries.
granrojo:or should we trust the market to do the right thing and allow Iran to do as they choose?
I see no viable reason for not allowing every government in the world to own nuclear weapons.
Yeah sure, they can build them, but since Iran is a declared enemy of Israel, the backlash from the Jewish community should be so strong that the US will be forced to say something about it.
xahrx: Taras Smereka:Countries/governments do not have rights. The people do. I don't think they actually want nuclear weapons however, they would probably prefer some farming equipment. That's a nice theoretical answer. However the reality is there's a group of likely nut jobs getting closer and closer to being able to evaporate major cities.[/Now I whole heartedly agree with a non intervention policy and think an ideal world would be purely anarcho capitalist. However complete and total military disengagement with the world after previous administrations have spent a good century pissing people off might not be the best path. The real question is what would be a policy to follow in the framework of a draw down of troops and overseas presence/intervention that would best appease the most angry nutters while addressing the very real risk of attack that our 'afore mentioned 'leaders' have exposed us to. Mises' statement about what you replace a fire with doesn't mean there aren't varying degrees of effective means for extinguishing a particular fire. Immediate pull out isn't necessarily the best option. And whatever your position on whether or not governments have rights or not, it's not the only relevant and hardly the most immediate concern vis a vi whether or not I'mADinnerJacket and his superiors in Iran have the ability to nuke cities.
That's a nice theoretical answer. However the reality is there's a group of likely nut jobs getting closer and closer to being able to evaporate major cities.[/Now I whole heartedly agree with a non intervention policy and think an ideal world would be purely anarcho capitalist. However complete and total military disengagement with the world after previous administrations have spent a good century pissing people off might not be the best path. The real question is what would be a policy to follow in the framework of a draw down of troops and overseas presence/intervention that would best appease the most angry nutters while addressing the very real risk of attack that our 'afore mentioned 'leaders' have exposed us to. Mises' statement about what you replace a fire with doesn't mean there aren't varying degrees of effective means for extinguishing a particular fire. Immediate pull out isn't necessarily the best option. And whatever your position on whether or not governments have rights or not, it's not the only relevant and hardly the most immediate concern vis a vi whether or not I'mADinnerJacket and his superiors in Iran have the ability to nuke cities.
There already is a group of nutjobs that have the capability to evaporate major cities- and they've done it more than once(the United States). Keeping troops overseas doesn't do anything to protect anyone- its only purpose is occupation and to continue the bloodbath of foreign and US military lives. Immediate pullout is not only the best option- its the only option that needs to be taken.
xahrx: That's a nice theoretical answer. However the reality is there's a group of likely nut jobs getting closer and closer to being able to evaporate major cities. Now I whole heartedly agree with a non intervention policy and think an ideal world would be purely anarcho capitalist. However complete and total military disengagement with the world after previous administrations have spent a good century pissing people off might not be the best path. The real question is what would be a policy to follow in the framework of a draw down of troops and overseas presence/intervention that would best appease the most angry nutters while addressing the very real risk of attack that our 'afore mentioned 'leaders' have exposed us to. Mises' statement about what you replace a fire with doesn't mean there aren't varying degrees of effective means for extinguishing a particular fire. Immediate pull out isn't necessarily the best option. And whatever your position on whether or not governments have rights or not, it's not the only relevant and hardly the most immediate concern vis a vi whether or not I'mADinnerJacket and his superiors in Iran have the ability to nuke cities.
Agreed.
I know of no treaty that forbids them.
scineram: I know of no treaty that forbids them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty
Now you know, and knowing is half the battle.
granrojo: What do people think? Does the right to do what you want on your own property stop at your country's border, or should we trust the market to do the right thing and allow Iran to do as they choose? Additionally, does a private company within your own country have the right to develop nuclear weapons on their own property? In both cases we can assume that they claim they only want them for defence purposes and have no intention of hurting anybody else.
No. No one has a right to anything because rights are not positive. Instead, rights are negative.
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."
Daniel:No. No one has a right to anything because rights are not positive. Instead, rights are negative.
In what way is he advocating positive property rights?
granrojo:Countries and governments are organisations made up of people.
This is not so. Countries and governments are organizations which claim authority over people. They are not "the people".
granrojo:Like it or not they are democratically elected.
Like it or not, Hitler was democratically elected. The point is?
granrojo:Without the technology we would also have no nuclear power and have to continue our reliance on fossil fuels.
Not necessarily. We could have developed other technologies. Nuclear is not the last and only solution.
xahrx:That's a nice theoretical answer.
It's a reasoned answer. Your reply was an appeal to emotion.
xahrx:However the reality is there's a group of likely nut jobs getting closer and closer to being able to evaporate major cities.
You mean the only group of mass murderers and nut jobs to ever deploy a nuke against a city, not once, but twice?
xahrx:And whatever your position on whether or not governments have rights or not, it's not the only relevant and hardly the most immediate concern vis a vi whether or not I'mADinnerJacket and his superiors in Iran have the ability to nuke cities.
What do you mean by position on whether or not governments have rights or not. It's not a matter of preference. Depending on your own ethics, they either do or do not. Now different ethics could claim they do, but I suspect your own ethics are not consistent with the idea that governments have rights, so the answer should be clear, at least to you.
Second, I'm not afraid of Ahamdinejad. I am scared of my government. They are the ones who will tase me and throw me in prison for not paying taxes correctly, or smoking a plant from my garden. They are the ones who will force me to have medical treatment I don't want, take my children from me, and make me fight, kill and die in a meaningless foreign war. If you're scared of Ahmadinejad, you have your blinders on to the threats all around you. My two cents.
Well, I'm just as worried about Iran as I am about the progressive movement in this country. They both worry me.
laminustacitus:All weapons have essentially no purpose but taking life.
Weapons have purpose in self-defense, specifically deterrence. Most civilians weapons are of this sort.
laminustacitus:I do not believe that Rothbard gives a good reason for the possession of WMDs being immoral.
I can agree with this.
I think a more effective approach to preventing “rogue” nations from pursuing and using nuclear weapons would be to obsolete the weapon or at the very least cripple their effectiveness. The reason that nuclear weapons are so terrifying is that they are delivered by ICBMs and can strike anywhere in the world with a push of the button. If all these world leaders were truly interested in making the world a safer place they could simply cooperate in the development and share in the cost of developing a missile defense that could obsolete the ICBMs that carry the warheads. But all the fear mongering is not about making you safe from a nuclear attack it is about scaring you into seceding power to government.
Why would anyone want to go against everything that their 'holy books' teach them, and annihilate 100's of thousands of innocent men, women, and children, and irradiate land for hundreds of years? Why cause massive hatred for their religion and fellow peoples for generations to come?
It makes absolutely no sense.
Clearly you have an irrational viewpoint of other cultures. "I'mADinnerJacket" is not a suicidal lunatic.
Why are you so willing to allow other states to hold nuclear weapons? Do you not remember recent history? What of Nagasaki and Hiroshima?
If you're reasoning is that, 'they are muslims!"- why don't you learn and understand some of their history? It seems interesting that during the first crusades, when Jerusalem was captured by the Christians, they slaughtered every man, women, and child. When Saladin recaptured it in the end of the 12th century, he put revenge aside, and spared many of the inhabitants of the city.
bloomj31:Well, I'm just as worried about Iran as I am about the progressive movement in this country. They both worry me.
The entire state is a progressive movement. People who are afraid of Iran are like children, scared of bed time stories or scared of some guy in a bath robe running around the caves of Afghanistan dragging his dialysis machine behind him.
liberty student: The entire state is a progressive movement. People who are afraid of Iran are like children, scared of bed time stories or scared of some guy in a bath robe running around the caves of Afghanistan dragging his dialysis machine behind him.
Maybe to you, but I've heard what Ahmadinejad has to say about Israel. I think he means business. What happens if he nukes Israel?
bloomj31: Maybe to you, but I've heard what Ahmadinejad has to say about Israel. I think he means business. What happens if he nukes Israel?
Then they get nothing from the tooth fairy.
What kind of a fantasy-land question is this?
Are you certain you've had to hear what he's said? Did you get the words right out of his mouth? Or was it some transcript that at some point said "I want to wipe Israel off the map!"
There are better sources of news than Fox, you know.
bloomj31:Maybe to you, but I've heard what Ahmadinejad has to say about Israel.
Have you? (link)
bloomj31:I think he means business.
How can you know this? Because he controls the military (he does not)? Because he has invaded other countries (he has not)? Because he has nukes (he does not)? Because he refuses weapons inspections (he does not)? Because Iran is not a member of the NPT (they are)?
bloomj31:What happens if he nukes Israel?
The same thing that happened when the Americans nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Thousand or millions of innocent people will die.
But isn't Israel the country with nukes, who doesn't follow international law, who isn't a member of the NPT, who doesn't allow weapon inspections?
Alright guys. You see no threat. Fine. But I do.
bloomj31: Alright guys. You see no threat. Fine. But I do.
Those Chinese might nuke us. The U.S. government should nuke them first, right? Maybe the U.S. government should just nuke the rest of the world, then we would not have to worry about all those scary aliens (as the U.S. government likes to call other people).
Do you see any threat from Israel who has nukes and refuses to follow international law or participate like the other nuclear nations in the NPT?
It's hypocritical to claim fear from a known non-threat, while claiming potential victimhood for a known threat.
I realize being consistent isn't exactly a strong point, but can't you see how irrational this position is? You're basically saying black is white, and white is black. Sure, you have sympathy for Israel, and little or none for Iran. But is that even rational, given that in Israel, there will be people you do and do not like, and likewise in Iran there are probably people you would and would not like.
Or do you claim it is well reasoned to see every Iranian (even the ones completely unknown or known as peaceful) as a threat to you?
At one point Jacob, you'll have to start to question your premises unless you want to avoid reasoned thinking (ideas which withstand scrutiny).
Sure we see a threat. From the rogue nation. Not from Iran who hasn`t invaded anyone in over 150 years.
Whatever. I'm not here to convince you guys. I'm just saying you've not convinced me that Iran isn't a threat.
bloomj31: Whatever. I'm not here to convince you guys. I'm just saying you've not convinced me that Iran isn't a threat.
Marko: Because you`re not here to be convinced. You`re not even a part of the reality based community.
Because you`re not here to be convinced. You`re not even a part of the reality based community.
I'm just here to learn about the political positions different people take. I have my own.
bloomj31: Marko: Because you`re not here to be convinced. You`re not even a part of the reality based community. I'm just here to learn about the political positions different people take. I have my own.
Wether Iran is a threat is not a political position. It is a reality based position.
granrojo: Does the right to do what you want on your own property stop at your country's border, or should we trust the market to do the right thing and allow Iran to do as they choose?
I don't understand the question. Iran certainly isn't a market nor is there a free market outside of Iran, who would trust something that doesn't currently exist? However, I think any Iranian, or anyone, or group of "anyones," certainly should have the freedom to build a nuclear weapon.