Marko: Wether Iran is a threat is not a political position. It is a reality based position.
Wether Iran is a threat is not a political position. It is a reality based position.
Fine, you win.
I don`t win. You lose by embracing ignorance.
liberty student: 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?
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?
Do you (or anyone else here) know of any articles that talk about this side of Israel?
I'm curious, I only ever hear the mainstream media's side of the story.
Robbery: The nation's fastest growing career!
Duties: Giving the people their bread and circuses, extracting payment by force, validating legitimacy, etc.
Job Outlook: Ever increasing and shows no signs of stopping!
bloomj31: 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?
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.
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?
What do you think the odds are that Iran drops the 1st bomb?
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.
Whatever. I'm not here to convince you guys. I'm just saying you've not convinced me that Iran isn't a threat.
Whether or not Iran is a threat is irrelevent. I think everyone here would agree that the possession of nuclear weapons by any state is dangerous. Whether is be due to a state explicitly using them, mistakes, or any other scenario. I think the question that is relevent is; are there other peaceful ways of dealing with a nuclear threat from Iran or any other nation? Possibly there are.
Angurse: 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.
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?
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.
The question was asked because many people on this forum believe that if you own a property then you have an absolute right to do what you want on that property, regardless of the consequences to the people around you.
The argument I hear most is that if you leave the market completely unregulated then everything will work itself out in the end for the better. Personally I believe that sometimes your freedom to do what you like on your property infringes other peoples rights, and therefore a better definition of property rights may be required.
I therefore wanted to know if people would extend this idea to the international setting, allowing countries absolute right to do what they choose on their own land. Or would you say that they can't do something because you believe that the market may not bring about the best outcome on its own?
Yes, I recognise that governments are not people, that's why I included the second question of whether a private individual should have the right to develop nuclear weapons on their own private property.
It is peoples views on the absolute right of private property that I was interested in. Not whether Iran is a good or bad country etc.
granrojo:The question was asked because many people on this forum believe that if you own a property then you have an absolute right to do what you want on that property, regardless of the consequences to the people around you.
This is not true.
Libertarian_for_Life: liberty student: 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? Do you (or anyone else here) know of any articles that talk about this side of Israel? I'm curious, I only ever hear the mainstream media's side of the story.
Pat Buchanan will have things on Zionism and Israel: http://buchanan.org/blog/
He gets some of his material from http://antiwar.com/ which also has all sorts of news with regards to current events in the middle east.
What side of Israel? Do you mean the nuclear issue specifically?
DD5: granrojo:The question was asked because many people on this forum believe that if you own a property then you have an absolute right to do what you want on that property, regardless of the consequences to the people around you. This is not true.
Fair enough. I shouldn't generalise, but some certainly do because I've been having debates on it.
Sure Iran has a right to nuclear weapons. I have a right to nukes too. According to the Constitution, my right to bear arms shall be uninfringed.
Plus I have a right to liberty. If you enjoy collecting stamps, how come I can't enjoy collecting nukes?
Edit:
>Weapons have purpose in self-defense, specifically deterrence. Most civilians weapons are of this sort.
You can also use nukes to do excavation. Like on the TV show Lost.
granrojo:Fair enough. I shouldn't generalise, but some certainly do because I've been having debates on it.
Name names, provide links please.
granrojo: DD5: granrojo:The question was asked because many people on this forum believe that if you own a property then you have an absolute right to do what you want on that property, regardless of the consequences to the people around you. This is not true. Fair enough. I shouldn't generalise, but some certainly do because I've been having debates on it.
Rights never imply that one has the freedom to violate another man's rights. Rights are defined in the negative. One does not have a right to initiate force against another.
It may be conceded that there will be rare cases where disputes will certainly arise as to whether the action of one individual infringes on the property of another. But there is no logical reason to conclude that such disputes cannot be resolved in a purely voluntary society.
liberty student: granrojo:Fair enough. I shouldn't generalise, but some certainly do because I've been having debates on it. Name names please.
Name names please.
Well that wouldn't be nice would it?
However, you will see that I am new around here so it shouldn't be too hard to look over my previous posts.
That said, I'd rather stick to the current debate rather than start picking at everyone else's views. I should probably retract my statement about "many people on this forum believe", it's not really my place to say what somebody else believes.
granrojo: Angurse: 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. The question was asked because many people on this forum believe that if you own a property then you have an absolute right to do what you want on that property, regardless of the consequences to the people around you. The argument I hear most is that if you leave the market completely unregulated then everything will work itself out in the end for the better. Personally I believe that sometimes your freedom to do what you like on your property infringes other peoples rights, and therefore a better definition of property rights may be required. I therefore wanted to know if people would extend this idea to the international setting, allowing countries absolute right to do what they choose on their own land. Or would you say that they can't do something because you believe that the market may not bring about the best outcome on its own? Yes, I recognise that governments are not people, that's why I included the second question of whether a private individual should have the right to develop nuclear weapons on their own private property. It is peoples views on the absolute right of private property that I was interested in. Not whether Iran is a good or bad country etc.
Is it possible that other individuals by exercising their own property rights could make it impossible to build a nuclear weapon on your own property? It is not a simple task to build a nuclear weapon and requires a huge amount of resources that would involve interaction with countless individuals and their property. Humor me and tell me of ways you think this could be done.
edit sp.
Whatever. I'm not here to convince you guys.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Southern: granrojo: Angurse: 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. The question was asked because many people on this forum believe that if you own a property then you have an absolute right to do what you want on that property, regardless of the consequences to the people around you. The argument I hear most is that if you leave the market completely unregulated then everything will work itself out in the end for the better. Personally I believe that sometimes your freedom to do what you like on your property infringes other peoples rights, and therefore a better definition of property rights may be required. I therefore wanted to know if people would extend this idea to the international setting, allowing countries absolute right to do what they choose on their own land. Or would you say that they can't do something because you believe that the market may not bring about the best outcome on its own? Yes, I recognise that governments are not people, that's why I included the second question of whether a private individual should have the right to develop nuclear weapons on their own private property. It is peoples views on the absolute right of private property that I was interested in. Not whether Iran is a good or bad country etc. Is it possible that other individuals by excersising their own property rights could make it impossible to build a nuclear weapon on your own property? It is not a simple task to build a nuclear weapon and requires a huge amount of resources that would involve interaction with countless individuals and their property. Humor me and tell me of ways you think this could be done.
Is it possible that other individuals by excersising their own property rights could make it impossible to build a nuclear weapon on your own property? It is not a simple task to build a nuclear weapon and requires a huge amount of resources that would involve interaction with countless individuals and their property. Humor me and tell me of ways you think this could be done.
It's the other way round. Not that you can make it impossible for someone else to build nuclear weapons, rather that someone may not feel altogether happy knowing their next door neighbour can cause so much damage with their nuclear weapons. The point is, at what point does somebody say "I know it's your property but you can't do that"
As to how it can be done. No idea, not my area of expertise, probably have to Google it ;)
Juan:Whatever. I'm not here to convince you guys. Right. Your purpose for being here is to spout neocon propaganda. And you are not as delusional as to believe that you are going to convince a bunch of radical libertarians that your neocon propaganda is anything different from neocon propaganda.
I would take this one step further and say that I think it's very unlikely that anyone's mind gets changed through internet conversations. No matter what their stance is.
You cannot have absolute liberty to do what you want on your property if it a) violates a contract you've made prior or b) violates the property of another, as the entire concept of property will be moot. On a side note, I don't think you really need a "right" to own or use property.
liberty student: laminustacitus:All weapons have essentially no purpose but taking life. Weapons have purpose in self-defense, specifically deterrence.
laminustacitus:All weapons have essentially no purpose but taking life.
Weapons have purpose in self-defense, specifically deterrence.
Nevertheless, self-defense is essentially justified force, which includes killing, and in my statement above I showed that, though some guns can wound, they are designed to kill, especially anything above 9mm. While there are self-defense weapons that are designed to use non lethal (e.g. a taser); guns on the other hand are lethal force, they are designed to kill, and anyone who utilizes a gun in self-defense better be ready to accept the fact that they might very well kill their attacker. Guns are able to deter attackers due to the fact that they are designed to kill. They are not designed to deter, rather they deter because of their design.
liberty student:Most civilians weapons are of this sort
A civilian gun is still designed to kill.
I wish to emphasize the fact that here, and above I am speaking of guns in particular. While many weapons are, in fact, designed to use non-lethal force, a gun is designed to kill (which is a fact I think we can all agree on, and while there may be exceptions to the rule, my point is still sound).
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
granrojo: Southern: granrojo: Angurse: 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. The question was asked because many people on this forum believe that if you own a property then you have an absolute right to do what you want on that property, regardless of the consequences to the people around you. The argument I hear most is that if you leave the market completely unregulated then everything will work itself out in the end for the better. Personally I believe that sometimes your freedom to do what you like on your property infringes other peoples rights, and therefore a better definition of property rights may be required. I therefore wanted to know if people would extend this idea to the international setting, allowing countries absolute right to do what they choose on their own land. Or would you say that they can't do something because you believe that the market may not bring about the best outcome on its own? Yes, I recognise that governments are not people, that's why I included the second question of whether a private individual should have the right to develop nuclear weapons on their own private property. It is peoples views on the absolute right of private property that I was interested in. Not whether Iran is a good or bad country etc. Is it possible that other individuals by excersising their own property rights could make it impossible to build a nuclear weapon on your own property? It is not a simple task to build a nuclear weapon and requires a huge amount of resources that would involve interaction with countless individuals and their property. Humor me and tell me of ways you think this could be done. It's the other way round. Not that you can make it impossible for someone else to build nuclear weapons, rather that someone may not feel altogether happy knowing their next door neighbour can cause so much damage with their nuclear weapons. The point is, at what point does somebody say "I know it's your property but you can't do that" As to how it can be done. No idea, not my area of expertise, probably have to Google it ;)
granrojo:The point is, at what point does somebody say "I know it's your property but you can't do that"
You can say it all you want but your actions are limited to your own property. For example if you own the road from the plutonium enriching plant to his property where he is assembling the bomb you can say "I know it's your property but you can't do that" and then promptly ban trucks carrying plutonium from your roads. This type of action can be used to prevent or punish all sorts of anti-social behavior.
granrojo:Well that wouldn't be nice would it?
What's not nice is to make generalizations, and not identify specific arguments, or their authors. I would be shocked, if there are more than a couple outliers here who hold the position you have attributed to the group, or a subset of the group.
granrojo:That said, I'd rather stick to the current debate rather than start picking at everyone else's views. I should probably retract my statement about "many people on this forum believe", it's not really my place to say what somebody else believes.
Good idea. I try to identify what I believe. What other people believe is all over the place and isn't even very good for purposes of illustration.
laminustacitus:They are not designed to deter, rather they deter because of their design.
Point taken.
bloomj31: Alright guys. You see no threat. Fine. But I do.
Alright guys. You see no threat. Fine. But I do.
Does the US have the right to nuclear weapons? Question for bloomj31.
liberty student: laminustacitus:They are not designed to deter, rather they deter because of their design. Point taken.
Point not taken!
The intent of the designer is irrelevant. Only the intent of the user should be relevant. What more,any such alleged non-lethal weapons is media propagated nonsense. There is no such thing as a non-lethal weapon!
Anything can kill and be used as a lethal weapon. Rubber bullets kill! Even stun guns kill. A car can be far more lethal then a pistol. Any hammer, knife, screw driver, or ax can be used as lethal weapons. They are and they have been in the past.
The maker of a gun can have no intent other then deterrence. He can hope that his gun is never used to kill another man. From his point of view, it is designed purely for deterrence.
Then they have not. I guess they will pull out.
Do you see a threat? Or do you believe there is a threat?
granrojo:Not that you can make it impossible for someone else to build nuclear weapons, rather that someone may not feel altogether happy knowing their next door neighbour can cause so much damage with their nuclear weapons.
Point 1) The massive amount of time, energy, money, and resources required to build a nuclear weapon put it out of the reach of some 99% of the population. If someone is willing to put that amount of effort into producing a nuclear weapon, do you think a law will truly be able to limit this person or business?
Point 2) The False Safety Blanket- People will feel secure knowing such a devastating weapon is 'unable to be produced' (see point 1). Businesses which would otherwise be created to provide this security by searching for, monitoring, and exposing production of such weapons would no longer be in existence. Insurance companies would not consider the area you live in for coverage. You may have some overarching government bureaucracy, but do you really want to trust this service to the same guys who brought you the post office, the DPS, FCC, FICA, SS, homeland security, or any of the other miserable government failures? What about corruption and accountability? It is much easier to bribe a government official than someone who stands to lose a lot of money.
Point 3) If you fear your neighbor having a nuclear weapon (as I do), it is simple- live in an area which has contractual stipulations in land contracts which disallow ownership of nuclear weapons. A form of 'voluntary publicly owned roads', or 'public health care', etc. is possible if the original developer includes stipulations in land contracts he sells. If you want 'public parks', you buy land that has it included in the contract. The market will take care of these types of scenarios. The sooner you come to the understanding that the entire purpose of the market is to satisfy the wants and needs of people- whatever those may be, the better off you will be. The countless errors and problems of the state will NEVER provide a solution which will be equal to that of a market solution. Why? When choices are limited by violence, everyone (except for the thief) loses.
DD5: liberty student: laminustacitus:They are not designed to deter, rather they deter because of their design. Point taken. Point not taken!
Shame.
DD5:The intent of the designer is irrelevant. Only the intent of the user should be relevant.
You seem to not get my entire point. A gun is created as a tool to kill someone, whether or not the holder of such a weapon has the same motive is irrelevant because the means to attain whatever ends he seeks is still a tool designed to kill someone. And yes, the intentions of the designers does actually matter when handling with their handiwork.
DD5:What more,any such alleged non-lethal weapons is media propagated nonsense. There is no such thing as a non-lethal weapon!
Oh please. A taser is not designed to kill, unlike a gun. A taser is designed to be a means of incapacitating an individual, and is therefore designed to be non-lethal.
DD5: Anything can kill and be used as a lethal weapon. Rubber bullets kill! Even stun guns kill. A car can be far more lethal then a pistol. Any hammer, knife, screw driver, or ax can be used as lethal weapons.
What is in question here is not possible use, but what they are designed to be used for! Seriously, did you bother to read my original statement, or did you just decide to make an irrelevant tangent. My entire point was to make an analogy between guns, and WMDs in order to show by analogy that Rothbard's theory against the very holding of WMDs is unsound.
DD5:The maker of a gun can have no intent other then deterrence.
Plain false. A gun-manufacturer must make the deadliest weapon possible, and it is because that weapon is deadly that it will be a deterrent. What kind of a deterrent is a gun that cannot kill efficiently? Its much like Vegetius' aphorism (whose soundness I will not comment on): si vis pacem, para bellum - if you want peace prepare for war. The only efficient deterrent is one that would actually be able to do its job if ever needed - a gun can only efficiently deter if it is able to defeat the aggressor in practice.
DD5:He can hope that his gun is never used to kill another man.
That may be true, but it still does not mean that he did not design his gun to be used to kill men.
Honestly, if you want to reply, I would suggest that you read my original comments to which LS was responding, and respond to those for this is an unnecessary tangent.
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/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.
True Dat!
laminustacitus: DD5:The intent of the designer is irrelevant. Only the intent of the user should be relevant. You seem to not get my entire point. A gun is created as a tool to kill someone, whether or not the holder of such a weapon has the same motive is irrelevant because the means to attain whatever ends he seeks is still a tool designed to kill someone. And yes, the intentions of the designers does actually matter when handling with their handiwork.
This is confusing though. Are you advocating there be no guns? It's naive to assume that men who want to kill will not persue such devices or create them. Does it not make sense to have a line of defense for the good guys as well?
Sorry if I misconstrued anything.
filc: laminustacitus: DD5:The intent of the designer is irrelevant. Only the intent of the user should be relevant. You seem to not get my entire point. A gun is created as a tool to kill someone, whether or not the holder of such a weapon has the same motive is irrelevant because the means to attain whatever ends he seeks is still a tool designed to kill someone. And yes, the intentions of the designers does actually matter when handling with their handiwork. This is confusing though. Are you advocating there be no guns?
This is confusing though. Are you advocating there be no guns?
I am using guns as an example of weapons used "no purpose but taking life" in order to show, by analogy, that Rothbard's argument against WMDs is unsound. For, if weapons were to be banned based on whether they have "no purpose but taking life", then it would follow, by Rothbard's argument, that guns must be banned along with WMDs. However, this is an absurd result, which is both an implicit assumption and something I would hope a reader would realize, so therefore Rothbard's proof must be rejected.
If you have any other problems with understanding my original post to Wanderer on the first page, respond with your confusion for my writing at times can be a bit muddled.
laminustacitus:A gun is created as a tool to kill someone, whether or not the holder of such a weapon has the same motive is irrelevant because the means to attain whatever ends he seeks is still a tool designed to kill someone
Isn't the use-value of a good dependent upon the customer's subjective preferences? I mean I could potentially by a gun to use as a piece of decor. Perhaps someone wants a western theme room and buys two colt 45 six shooters. A person bought these guns yet they are not tools to kill. They are pieces of furniture.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/theory_gun_control.pdf
Toward a Universal Libertarian Theory of Gun (Weapon) Control: . a Spatial and Geographical Analysis
WALTER BLOCK and MATTHEW BLOCK
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
Laughing Man: laminustacitus:A gun is created as a tool to kill someone, whether or not the holder of such a weapon has the same motive is irrelevant because the means to attain whatever ends he seeks is still a tool designed to kill someone Isn't the use-value of a good dependent upon the customer's subjective preferences? I mean I could potentially by a gun to use as a piece of decor. Perhaps someone wants a western theme room and buys two colt 45 six shooters. A person bought these guns yet they are not tools to kill. They are pieces of furniture.
Since Rothbard, according to the argument as advocated by Stranger, takes the design of WMDs to be an objective fact, I also take the design of firearms to be an objective fact in a similar manner.
Nevertheless, the fact that a gun is designed to kill people is, in fact, an objective fact. If the gun-manufacturer designed the gun to kill, I can objectively state that the gun is designed to kill, and it is a fact that the vast majority, if not entirety, of guns in existence are designed to kill. Even if an individual makes furniture out of guns, it is still sound to state that his furniture was originally designed to kill.
laminustacitus:Since Rothbard, according to the argument as advocated by Stranger, takes the design of WMDs to be an objective fact, I also take the design of firearms to be an objective fact in a similar manner.
Objective fact in what sense?
laminustacitus:Nevertheless, the fact that a gun is designed to kill people is, in fact, an objective fact.
This doesn't address subjective use value.
laminustacitus:If the gun-manufacturer designed the gun to kill, I can objectively state that the gun is designed to kill, and it is a fact that the vast majority, if not entirety, of guns in existence are designed to kill.
And a chainsaw company made their design to be able to cut down trees yet it can be used to cut up bodies. I think you are neglecting use value being subjective.
I think there is some confusion here. Laminustacitus, from what I can tell, is simply criticizing Rothbard's judgement of WMD's. I think he draws a correct analogy and raises a good point
I don't think he's arguing subjective use. Could be wrong though!
laminustacitus:All weapons have essentially no purpose but taking life."
The point is not that they kill but that they can't be targeted at an aggressor without killing innocents or polluting the entire globe. Anyhow, one really doesn't know what some stranger is capable of when he breaks into a home or something. Killing is not unjustifiable per se, but aggression upon innocent people is. We objectively know that the latter is the result of detonating nukes on this planet.
I agree that all should read Walter Block's Toward a Universal Libertarian Theory of Gun (Weapon) Control: a Spatial and Geographical Analysis to understand why mere possession of nuclear devices constitutes a threat.
The only issue that I have with this paper is probably an unmentioned consideration and me being a bit constructivist. Of course, Man has different possible outcomes, such as his annihilation in a nuclear Holocaust, but please consider 3 possible places in the course of human history:
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
granrojo:Does the right to do what you want on your own property stop at your country's border
No. It stops at the boundary of your property.
granrojo:or should we trust the market to do the right thing and allow Iran to do as they choose?
I'm sorry, but this question makes no sense. A market is an aggregate of voluntary interactions. Iran is a state, an organization with a judicial monopoly over a given territory and an exclusive right to tax within this territory. A state and a market are mutually exclusive concepts.
So asking your question is alot like asking whether or not the perimeter of a circular triangle is equal to the sum of all its sides.
I do think that Iran has the right to develop nuclear weapons. This is just an extension of the rights of Iranian taxpayers to have the government defend them. Favourable public opinion and nuclear weapons are the only effective counters against an aggressor with overwhelming conventional military power. If Iran is going to defend its citizens against foreign aggressors, it will probably need to have nuclear weapons.
granrojo:Additionally, does a private company within your own country have the right to develop nuclear weapons on their own property?
Absolutely, so long as they are not being reckless and endangering any innocent person.
laminustacitus: filc: laminustacitus: DD5:The intent of the designer is irrelevant. Only the intent of the user should be relevant. You seem to not get my entire point. A gun is created as a tool to kill someone, whether or not the holder of such a weapon has the same motive is irrelevant because the means to attain whatever ends he seeks is still a tool designed to kill someone. And yes, the intentions of the designers does actually matter when handling with their handiwork. This is confusing though. Are you advocating there be no guns? I am using guns as an example of weapons used "no purpose but taking life" in order to show, by analogy, that Rothbard's argument against WMDs is unsound. For, if weapons were to be banned based on whether they have "no purpose but taking life", then it would follow, by Rothbard's argument, that guns must be banned along with WMDs. However, this is an absurd result, which is both an implicit assumption and something I would hope a reader would realize, so therefore Rothbard's proof must be rejected. If you have any other problems with understanding my original post to Wanderer on the first page, respond with your confusion for my writing at times can be a bit muddled.
Wanderer:Rothbard says that possession of WMDs is effectively aggression, as they have no purpose but taking life. I agree with that assertion.
/sigh - This has been covered before...
Rothbard's argument is NOT unsound, and a strawman has been erected - that is all.
Conza88: ********:Here's Rothbard's take on it.. He seems to be saying that since they cannot be used without murdering people, simply owning them is a crime for which redress is justifiable. I agree with that. Except he doesn't. Conza88: This may be of use to some of you. "It has often been maintained, and especially by conservatives, that the development of the horrendous modern weapons of mass murder (nuclear weapons, rockets, germ warfare, etc.) is only a difference of degree rather than kind from the simpler weapons of an earlier era. Of course, one answer to this is that when the degree is the number of human lives, the difference is a very big one.4 But another answer that the libertarian is particularly equipped to give is that while the bow and arrow and even the rifle can be pinpointed, if the will be there, against actual criminals, modern nuclear weapons cannot. Here is a crucial difference in kind. Of course, the bow and arrow could be used for aggressive purposes, but it could also be pinpointed to use only against aggressors. Nuclear weapons, even "conventional" aerial bombs, cannot be. These weapons are ipso facto engines of indiscriminate mass destruction. (The only exception would be the extremely rare case where a mass of people who were all criminals inhabited a vast geographical area.) We must, therefore, conclude that the use or the threat thereof of nuclear or similar weapons, is a sin and a crime against humanity for which there can be no justification." Only the use or threat thereof, not merely owning or possessing. A clear and definitive distinction.
********:Here's Rothbard's take on it.. He seems to be saying that since they cannot be used without murdering people, simply owning them is a crime for which redress is justifiable. I agree with that.
Except he doesn't.
Conza88: This may be of use to some of you. "It has often been maintained, and especially by conservatives, that the development of the horrendous modern weapons of mass murder (nuclear weapons, rockets, germ warfare, etc.) is only a difference of degree rather than kind from the simpler weapons of an earlier era. Of course, one answer to this is that when the degree is the number of human lives, the difference is a very big one.4 But another answer that the libertarian is particularly equipped to give is that while the bow and arrow and even the rifle can be pinpointed, if the will be there, against actual criminals, modern nuclear weapons cannot. Here is a crucial difference in kind. Of course, the bow and arrow could be used for aggressive purposes, but it could also be pinpointed to use only against aggressors. Nuclear weapons, even "conventional" aerial bombs, cannot be. These weapons are ipso facto engines of indiscriminate mass destruction. (The only exception would be the extremely rare case where a mass of people who were all criminals inhabited a vast geographical area.) We must, therefore, conclude that the use or the threat thereof of nuclear or similar weapons, is a sin and a crime against humanity for which there can be no justification."
This may be of use to some of you.
"It has often been maintained, and especially by conservatives, that the development of the horrendous modern weapons of mass murder (nuclear weapons, rockets, germ warfare, etc.) is only a difference of degree rather than kind from the simpler weapons of an earlier era. Of course, one answer to this is that when the degree is the number of human lives, the difference is a very big one.4 But another answer that the libertarian is particularly equipped to give is that while the bow and arrow and even the rifle can be pinpointed, if the will be there, against actual criminals, modern nuclear weapons cannot. Here is a crucial difference in kind. Of course, the bow and arrow could be used for aggressive purposes, but it could also be pinpointed to use only against aggressors. Nuclear weapons, even "conventional" aerial bombs, cannot be. These weapons are ipso facto engines of indiscriminate mass destruction. (The only exception would be the extremely rare case where a mass of people who were all criminals inhabited a vast geographical area.) We must, therefore, conclude that the use or the threat thereof of nuclear or similar weapons, is a sin and a crime against humanity for which there can be no justification."
Only the use or threat thereof, not merely owning or possessing. A clear and definitive distinction.