Political Theory

Re: How can a free society protect itself?

TJC — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 21:35:29 GMT

Starting from the basic non-aggression principle, the right of freedom from uninitiated violence against yourself, it makes perfect sense that you would be able to act aggressively against a person trying to aquire devistating weapons against you. An example is the use of guns in self-defense. Given a situation where someone is brandishing a gun at you, it is perfectly reasonable that you would try to kill them first. Note than in this situation that the aggressor only threatened force by putting you in the "kill zone" of his gun. Applying this to they use of explosives, it is logically consistant for someone threatened by the weapon to use force to eliminate the threat. I can justify taking a man's freedom or property based only on his intentions because his intentions are a direct threat against my life.

Taking this a step out to a societal view, you also have to consider the consequences of your defensive actions. Who would react negatively to the use of force against such an aggressor? Remember that in a free society nobody is obliged to defend his actions like governments are with citizens. Such an act by one person would invite an intolerable risk of retaliation against everyone else in his defense group (minarchist government, insurance corporation, homeowners association, whatever), so why would they act to defend him?

In the end, we have two results of the crazy suicidal terrorist. 1) as the size of the weapon increases, it becomes less ambiguous as to whom the aggressor was. This reduces the likely hood of anyone supporting the terrorist as the weapon gets bigger. 2) as the weapon gets bigger, the more people are directly affected by it and have a self-interest in seeing it disabled. This increases the amount of resources that would be dedicated to finding and eliminating the terrorist.

Re: How can a free society protect itself?

CShirk — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 04:30:40 GMT

dbooksta:

CShrik, quick lesson in high energy materials: The distinction is "high" vs "low" explosives, not "high-tech" vs "low-tech." A high explosive detonation is defined as a self-sustaining conversion of a stable non-gaseous compound into a gas at supersonic velocities (typical threshold cited for v/D is 1000 m/s). Lots of things "explode" without satisfying these properties, but unless they satisfy these properties they do not scale up in nearly as destructive a fashion. A high explosive may look quite low-tech: As you said, it's just a blasting cap of sufficient quality shoved into a pile of otherwise benign nitrated material. AN-based explosives are easy to come by because AN is readily available in bulk, though some care must be taken to prevent it from hydrolyzing during storage. TNT, C4, RDX, and other military-grade explosives are not easy to make in quantity. Many of these substances will burn or deflagrate, but they need good blasting caps to actually detonate. Many people who try to make blasting caps at home end up losing fingers or creating unstable or unreliable detonators. Granted, it is possible to build stable and reliable high explosives at home, though not nearly as easy as walking down to an industrial supply center and buying them -- if the government permitted that.

How difficult is it? You point out that there have been many explosive attacks in the United States. But again, the one successful domestic high explosive attack I am aware of is the Oklahoma City bombing. Even the World Trade Center bombing appears to have been an attempted high explosive that only deflagrated.

You assert that nobody antisocial enough to want to commit mass murder would take the time to assemble a high explosive -- even if the components were not banned. Without going too far into dueling hypotheticals, do you believe that the unabomber, the weathermen, and all other domestic entities who launched low-explosive attacks would not have preferred a high explosive device if they could build one?

You assert that a nuclear device is too expensive and complex for anyone to pursue just so that they can commit mass destruction. Granted, the simplest gun-type nukes are expensive and complex, but not so much that if refined nuclear materials (which by the way, aren't suitable for power generation) weren't controlled there wouldn't be pryomaniacs, psychopaths, or cults that wouldn't pursue them with decent probabilities for success. And the consequences would be far out of proportion to those of even the most ambitious high explosive. (Note again that I am not referring to state actors, but to bans imposed by governments on those whom they govern.)

You also appear to assert that in the absence of religion and politics nobody -- crazy or otherwise -- would ever have a motive to undertake mass murder. I think that is naively optimistic.

First, I'm well aware of the difference between "low' and "high" explosive. My reference to "low" or "high" tech explosives was with reference to the detonating methods, safeties, et cetera. I was trying - and obviously failed - to point out that making a low-tech explosive device is extremely easy. Even a battery-detonated blasting cap (used to detonate high explosives) would be simple, using simple materials readily acquired from ye olde hardware and auto repare stores. By "low" tech I'm referring to simple fusing devices and blasting caps...nothing special. A fuse burns and eventually boom. "High" tech would be referring to time-delay mechanisms which "count" turns of a fuse mechanism or rotations of the device. A bouncing betty would also be considered pretty "high tech" as it requires extremely precise machining and a lot of technical know-how.

Second, you assert that it is not possible to make high explosives in large quantities. Define large quantities. To build a belt bomb doesn't require "large quantities"...dropping the Empire State Building would. Keep in mind that explosives are pretty powerful stuff. If you can put together about a pound - two pounds tops - of high explosives, that's enough to put most McDonald's I've ever been in into low orbit. It doesn't take much to do the job. When I hear "large quantities", I'm typically thinking mass manufacture, on the order of tons of output.

Third, you assert that high explosives are hard to make or acquire. Timothy McVeigh (sp on last name?) would disagree...he bought his from the local farming goods store. Ammonium Nitrate is a common fertilizer, readily available in mass quantities, and is very easily made to explode. The BATFE can't regulate it, because to do so, they would have to completely shut down all farming in the United States - at least until they come up with a better fertilizer (although I should note that info is as of 1998).

I am hardly asserting that in the absence of religion or politics nobody would ever undertake mass murder. I realize that there are people that enjoy killing out there, amongst other things. Religion and politics eliminate two major motives, but not all of them. I do not think that most psychopaths are going to go through the time and effort required to build a working nuclear weapon, but again what would the psychopath be after? Unlikely? Yes. Impossible, admittedly, no.

Additionally, last I looked, nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors both use the same isotopes of Uranium and Plutonium (U-235 and Pu-239). The difference is in the percent concentration used. Nuclear reactors require much lower percentage concentration because too high a percent concentration will - if bombarded with neutrons, as is done in achieving a chain reaction - cause a nuclear explosion. Enrichment of U and Pu, by the way, to acquire the desired isotopes requires a lot of time, effort, money, and bulky tools. First, it has to be converted from bulk uranium oxide to uranium hexofloride. The process becomes even more complex from there, involving Gas Centrifuges (or other really cool-sounding science lab toys). If someone was building a nuclear weapon in their basement, I guarantee that people would take note. (Yes, I know there's always the Manhattan Project, but maybe that's why they did the final stages - beyond the theory - out in the middle of the New Mexico desert.) Yes, the science is very well proliferated, but it isn't that simple. It would be like knowing how to build a car, but not having all of the dies, tools, et cetera to make one. (Bad analogy, I know, but it's all I could think of). I think you need to sit down and do some research to realize just how complicated getting a nuke put together is.

Anyway, I'll write more on this later. I am about to fall asleep in front o fthe computer.

Re: How can a free society protect itself?

liberty student — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 06:06:42 GMT

What a Wookie...

Re: How can a free society protect itself?

Twilight — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 05:46:54 GMT

dbooksta:

Seems like the only proposals are coming from anarchists, and their consensus seems to be:

1. There is no principled basis to take preemptive action against someone acquiring or holding an asymmetric weapon.

2. Nevertheless, most people probably will use force to preempt other people from acquiring asymmetric weapons. I.e., in practice, "Might makes right -- so long as it isn't a government!"

3. The only principled response to an asymmetric threat is to try to buy it off, or else to run away. "Anarchists: We put the mob in mob rule!"

Thank you for your answers.

At this point I would invite minarchists and other non-anarchist libertarians to offer principled answers to the question.

1) That's not what I have argued, though its close. The "preemptive action" appropriate to the circumstances are: To participate in voluntary restrictive covenants, and to provide security as demanded. Security firms would want to protect their customers, and, ceterus parebus, they can be expected to do so better than a monopoly of force, for reasons already detailed.

2) This is still a matter of open dispute amongst anarchists, I guess. The theory is that folks who keep this sort of equipment around are already agressing against their neighbors because of the mass destruction nature of the weapon. However, I don't think this is a necessary principle of anarchism - it could be done without, and I can't say I agree with it myself. Even if this turns out to be true - minarchy would be coercion against all members of society as opposed to a very very select few, so anarchy still wins on this point.

3) This is abolustely not what I said, although perhaps you could be referring to other posters. I won't speak for them, but to define assessing risk, creating buffer zones and other forms of security, restrictive covenants, etc, as "running away" is quite a work of hyperbole. Also, to define potential nuke owners as a "mob" is a little loaded as well. The percentage of potential nuke owners is simply not that large. In any world in which is was that large, government would already have lost the war against it - just like they lost the war on drugs etc.

As I see it, the burden of proof is still on you to explain exactly why a monoply of coercion and force is going to be better - on this count in particular and on all counts of utility in general - than a free market of security provision.

Re: How can a free society protect itself?

Stranger — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 05:44:38 GMT

fezwhatley:

how i defend myself

Chewbacca?

Re: How can a free society protect itself?

nibbler491 — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 01:00:27 GMT

dbooksta:

It sounds like you've admitted that in a completely free world people are likely to institute minarchy. Indeed, it seems that most people will demand it given the threats posed by modern weaponry. So anarchy is a purely utopian theory.

Nope. Free people voluntarily opting into a minarchist government is still anarchy my friend.

Re: How can a free society protect itself?

fezwhatley — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 21:11:43 GMT

how i defend myself

Re: How can a free society protect itself?

Maxliberty — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 19:46:07 GMT

dbooksta:

Seems like the only proposals are coming from anarchists, and their consensus seems to be:

1. There is no principled basis to take preemptive action against someone acquiring or holding an asymmetric weapon.

2. Nevertheless, most people probably will use force to preempt other people from acquiring asymmetric weapons. I.e., in practice, "Might makes right -- so long as it isn't a government!"

3. The only principled response to an asymmetric threat is to try to buy it off, or else to run away. "Anarchists: We put the mob in mob rule!"

Thank you for your answers.

At this point I would invite minarchists and other non-anarchist libertarians to offer principled answers to the question.

Look, the facts in any particular case actually matter. Why, How and What your neighbor is doing matters to what we would expect normal people to do in response. The response could range from nothing to full scale assault and anywhere in between.

As I said before, what would you do? Answer your own question. We are discussing a free society so there is no big brother that can protect you. You are on your own.

Finally, you are expecting the impossible, which is some unanimous agreement on what the right answer is in every case. Right now there are what maybe 8 countries that have nuclear weapons and a couple others working on it and between those countries they have literally thousands of nuclear weapons. Do you feel safe? Do you think people felt safe when the USSR had 3000 missles pointed at the US? But, aren't these your beloved governments that are supposed to protect you? Do you think in a free society people will spend trillions of dollars building nuclear weapons? Without the mass coercion of taxation there would be very few nuclear weapons on the entire planet.

One more point, if government is better at something like providing for security and defense as you are arguing, why is it they are not good enough to do everything else in your minarchist paradise?

Re: How can a free society protect itself?

liberty student — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 19:29:13 GMT

dbooksta:

Seems like the only proposals are coming from anarchists, and their consensus seems to be:

1. There is no principled basis to take preemptive action against someone acquiring or holding an asymmetric weapon.

2. Nevertheless, most people probably will use force to preempt other people from acquiring asymmetric weapons. I.e., in practice, "Might makes right -- so long as it isn't a government!"

3. The only principled response to an asymmetric threat is to try to buy it off, or else to run away. "Anarchists: We put the mob in mob rule!"

Thank you for your answers.

None of which you have refuted with a principled dissent.

dbooksta:

At this point I would invite minarchists and other non-anarchist libertarians to offer principled answers to the question.

A principled use of coercion. Now there is a mouthful.

Re: How can a free society protect itself?

JAlanKatz — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 19:02:58 GMT

It seems to me that a lot of what we're doing here is asking about how a free-market prevents terrorists from building weapons, vs. how a government does so. The unasked side of the question is how a government encourages the building of weapons. Why is a terrorist with a nuke more dangerous than government officials, presumed to stand for good and righteousness, having nukes? Does government prevent the building of dangerous weapons, or monopolize it, centralize it, and fund it?

Re: How can a free society protect itself?

dbooksta — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 18:54:07 GMT

Seems like the only proposals are coming from anarchists, and their consensus seems to be:

1. There is no principled basis to take preemptive action against someone acquiring or holding an asymmetric weapon.

2. Nevertheless, most people probably will use force to preempt other people from acquiring asymmetric weapons. I.e., in practice, "Might makes right -- so long as it isn't a government!"

3. The only principled response to an asymmetric threat is to try to buy it off, or else to run away. "Anarchists: We put the mob in mob rule!"

Thank you for your answers.

At this point I would invite minarchists and other non-anarchist libertarians to offer principled answers to the question.

Re: How can a free society protect itself?

Twilight — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 18:30:40 GMT

dbooksta:

A neighbor decides to assemble a bomb on his property. You're saying that the open market would respond to that by increasing production of security up to some equilibrium point. My point is that at some level (I have suggested high explosives and nuclear explosives) it is impossible to provide any security against a weapon. This is a binary situation: If the device isn't detonated, nothing. If it is, then everything within a certain distance is dead. And no proportional retribution can possibly be meted out to the perpetrator after the fact. The only security is to move far away, but don't I have a right to be secure in my life and property? This is the problem with asymmetric weapons. And this is why I suggest that there is no natural right to asymmetric weapons, and that therefore any individual or group is justified in using force to prevent the acquisition of such weapons.

I'm not sure this is true. First of all, yes you have the right to your life and property - but you don't have the right to your property's value, which can change over time. Having a nuke nearby might lower your property value - then again security firms might pay you a fortune for it because it acts as a buffer zone against a threat. Either way, an externality has affected your property value and it was up to you to judge the odds of things like this happening when you purchased the property. Just such a buffer zone, BTW, is a counterexample to there being no defense against high explosives and the like.

Also, yes you have the right not to be agressed against, which is what I assume you mean by "a right to be secure in my life and property." But you also have the right to live right next to a dangerous cliff, in the middle of a disease ridden jungle - or next door to nuke guy. If the benefit of living there exceeds the risk for you, then you do it. Otherwise, you don't.

So far, taking your posts and the posts of others into account, I just don't see ample evidence, either theoretical or empirical, that a free society would be at increased risk for nuclear or high explosive attack. Even if there were such an increased risk:

1) The benefits of free society could outweigh the costs, as another poster said, and

2) The market would internalize the risk just like it does with every risk, giving opportunities to risk-takers (security firms or perhaps people who dont mind the danger) and allowing freedom of escape for the risk-averse.

Re: How can a free society protect itself?

Eric — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 17:27:09 GMT

My question is, who do you trust with nucleur weopons in an anarchial society? Sure our current government our just people and are no better than the average joe, but y question lies in, how do you keep them out of the hands of the outliers who just kill for the fun of it. If one were to allow the unibomber access to a nuke, what would our world be like. Not taking sides just would like an answer.

Re: How can a free society protect itself?

Maxliberty — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 15:57:36 GMT

dbooksta:
Indeed, it seems that most people will demand it given the threats posed by modern weaponry.

Most people will have some sort of protection against these, agreed. The key word being most, in a free society if you don't need or want protection from it then you won't be forced to pay. So the people who think this is an issue will hire protection agencies to defend them. So why should the guy living on a mountain somewhere who is 1000 miles from your next door neighbor with the truck bomb problem be forced to pay money every year so you feel safer? Perhaps if you and your goons were not forcing your neighbor to do things he didn't want to do then maybe he wouldn't be building a truck bomb.

Re: How can a free society protect itself?

Maxliberty — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 15:50:48 GMT

dbooksta:
This is the problem with asymmetric weapons. And this is why I suggest that there is no natural right to asymmetric weapons, and that therefore any individual or group is justified in using force to prevent the acquisition of such weapons.

It is the potential misuse of the weapon that is the issue. Not the weapon itself. What you are doing is taking a local problem, that is the people who might immediately be affected by such a device and saying that is an excuse to impose restrictions on everyone else not affected by the issue. You also are under the mistaken belief that you are not allowed to act against people who are planning to harm you. Free societies allow you to protect yourself. So to the extent you are threatened you can take action and to the extent you are not then you can't. No need for minarchy.