libertarians and nukes?

[trey4sports]

ive always wandered how Libertarians view nuke policy?

is the state within its boundarys by restricting personal storage of nuclear weapons?

[The_Orlonater]

Soon lets have bazooka's and grenades in the household. :rolleyes:

[nate895]

Soon lets have bazooka's and grenades in the household. :rolleyes:

Bazookas and grenades are OK. Nuclear weapons present a public danger if not properly contained, and no private citizen has the ability to be able to store them.

[heavenlyboy34]

Bazookas and grenades are OK. Nuclear weapons present a public danger if not properly contained, and no private citizen has the ability to be able to store them.

+1

[Zippyjuan]

In a totally free society you can nuke whomever you want to. Countries can do it too since we won't care what they are doing either.

From Randy Newman:
http://www.lyricstime.com/randy-newman-political-science-lyrics.html

Boom goes London and boom Paree
More room for you and more room for me
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town
Oh, how peaceful it will be
We'll set everybody free
You'll wear a Japanese kimono
And there'll be Italian shoes for me

[Monolithic]

edit: nevermind

[NMCB3]

Bazookas and grenades are OK. Nuclear weapons present a public danger if not properly contained, and no private citizen has the ability to be able to store them.My Swiss Army Knife presents a "public danger" if not "properly contained". Its a slippery slope to ban objects from public ownership on the basis of what "could" happen, in fact almost anything "could" be misused in one way or another,eg. I could go on a killing spree with my three pronged fork, should forks be restricted? :)

[The_Orlonater]

Bazookas and grenades are OK. Nuclear weapons present a public danger if not properly contained, and no private citizen has the ability to be able to store them.

And Bazookas and grenades don't? Lol.

[The_Orlonater]

My Swiss Army Knife presents a "public danger" if not "properly contained". Its a slippery slope to ban objects from public ownership on the basis of what "could" happen, in fact almost anything "could" be misused in one way or another,eg. I could go on a killing spree with my three pronged fork, should forks be restricted? :)

IMO, a bazooka should be restricted. So should your neighbor have a tank? What about a missle.?

[Zippyjuan]

I promise my nuke will only be used in self defense! Unless the other guy does something to piss me off then all bets are off too.

[nate895]

And Bazookas and grenades don't? Lol.

They are easily contained and much harder to have a misfire than a nuke, and when they do misfire, minimal comparative damage is done. Your insurance can cover a bazooka or grenade going off when you don't want it to. However, with nuclear weapons, an entire city is incinerated, and global climate is affected, not something any insurance company could handle, not to mention the millions upon millions of lives lost.

[heavenlyboy34]

In a totally free society you can nuke whomever you want to. Countries can do it too since we won't care what they are doing either.

From Randy Newman:
http://www.lyricstime.com/randy-newman-political-science-lyrics.html

No. In a free society, you are free to do whatever you want-providing that you don't hurt others.

[nate895]

My Swiss Army Knife presents a "public danger" if not "properly contained". Its a slippery slope to ban objects from public ownership on the basis of what "could" happen, in fact almost anything "could" be misused in one way or another,eg. I could go on a killing spree with my three pronged fork, should forks be restricted? :)

You can properly contain a Swiss Army Knife in the pocket of your jeans. It requires a bunker to properly contain a nuclear weapon.

[mediahasyou]

no state means no nukes.

[Andrew-Austin]

Let us assume that before the nuclear bomb was ever invented in the United States, us Americans lived in a state of minarchy, anarcho-capitalism, or whatever.

So when WW2 came about, from the beginning we as a nation decided to stay out of the conflict. All of the intellectuals/scientists in the warring nations then proceeded to flee to the US to escape the madness and persecution, the "brain drain" as it is called. As a super power in a world of mad warring nations, we then decide to establish means for defense only. The scientists living in the country, would have no reason whatsoever to create an atom bomb. Their time and limited resources would be spent on something more productive instead of the insanely destructive atom bomb. The Manhattan project simply would not have been able to come about in a libertarian minded country, the funds would not be allotted to them and the scientists would not agree to work together to create it.

My point by saying all of this is:
If it were not for big government, if we had been living in a libertarian society all along, the atom bomb would not have been invented.

But since we unfortunately live in a statist world, and nukes do exist.... In the transition to a more libertarian society, most if not all of our nuclear arsenal would be destroyed.

The policy for individual or corporate ownership of nukes might have to be what this guy said:

Nuclear weapons present a public danger if not properly contained, and no private citizen has the ability to be able to store them.

So basically, it might be necessary for a libertarian minded government to use its power to protect people against the after-effects of a statist government (the invention of nuclear weaponry).

[heavenlyboy34]

Further, it might be necessary for an libertarian to raise his own army to defend himself/his family against nuclear powers.

[Zippyjuan]

Let us assume that before the nuclear bomb was ever invented in the United States, us Americans lived in a state of minarchy, anarcho-capitalism, or whatever.

So when WW2 came about, from the beginning we as a nation decided to stay out of the conflict. All of the intellectuals/scientists in the warring nations then proceeded to flee to the US to escape the madness and persecution, the "brain drain" as it is called. As a super power in a world of mad warring nations, we then decide to establish means for defense only. The scientists living in the country, would have no reason whatsoever to create an atom bomb. Their time and limited resources would be spent on something more productive instead of the insanely destructive atom bomb. The Manhattan project simply would not have been able to come about in a libertarian minded country, the funds would not be allotted to them and the scientists would not agree to work together to create it.

My point by saying all of this is:
If it were not for big government, if we had been living in a libertarian society all along, the atom bomb would not have been invented.

But since we unfortunately live in a statist world, and nukes do exist.... In the transition to a more libertarian society, most if not all of our nuclear arsenal would be destroyed.

The policy for individual or corporate ownership of nukes might have to be what this guy said:


So basically, it might be necessary for a libertarian minded government to use its power to protect people against the after-effects of a statist government (the invention of nuclear weaponry).

The US developed their atom bomb because they believed (correctly) that the Germans were working on developing one. We did not know at the time how successful or unsuccessful they were in that process. If we did not make one- do you thing the Germans would have stopped their work and not made one? They did not know we were working on one too. The Russians were looking into it too. Even if we had been pacifists and stayed out of WWII there would still be atomic weapons today.

[sailor]

They are easily contained and much harder to have a misfire than a nuke, and when they do misfire, minimal comparative damage is done.

:rolleyes:

Nuclear weapons aren`t much more likely to "misfire". Rather it is the opposite - it is a challange to make them ignite.

Since you obviously don`t know a first thing about nukes why do you feel the need to talk out of your ass about them anyway?

[nate895]

:rolleyes:

Nuclear weapons aren`t much more likely to "misfire". Rather it is the opposite - it is a challange to make them ignite.

Since you obviously don`t know a first thing about nukes why do you feel the need to talk out of your ass about them anyway?

"Oops, I accidentally launched a bazooka into the side of your house, I'll call my insurance, please don't charge me with something."

"Oops, since I didn't properly contain my nuke, I tripped and armed it. Since the bomb squad accidentally clipped the wrong wire, the entire city is incinerated."

What could possible be the reason for owning a nuke anyway? It's not like you have the means to deliver it if, for some crazy reason, you actually had a legitimate reason to use it.

[NMCB3]

IMO, a bazooka should be restricted. So should your neighbor have a tank? What about a missle.?The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

infringe -
verb, -fringed, -fring⋅ing.
–verb (used with object) 1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.
–verb (used without object) 2. To encroach; to trespass; -- followed by on or upon; as, to infringe upon the rights of another.

Opinions are the opposite of facts; everyone`s entitled to thier opinions, everyone`s entitled to their LIES.

[NMCB3]

You can properly contain a Swiss Army Knife in the pocket of your jeans. It requires a bunker to properly contain a nuclear weapon.What does proper mean in this context? Who decides whats proper and what isn't? Hasn't the necessary and proper clause of the constitution been perverted beyond all recognition? Do Swiss Army knives and nukes have free will, or are we talking about the specific actions of specific individuals. :)

[nickcoons]

Any group, including government, has only the rights that the individual members of the group have. Therefore, if individuals do not have the right to keep and bear nuclear weapons, then neither does government.

[nate895]

What does proper mean in this context? Who decides whats proper and what isn't? Hasn't the necessary and proper clause of the constitution been perverted beyond all recognition? Do Swiss Army knives and nukes have free will, or are we talking about the specific actions of specific individuals. :)

Proper in this case would mean in a way as to not endanger the public. Nukes are dangerous things that cause massive death and destruction, there is no reason for a private citizen to use it. There might be limited scenarios where the military would need to use one in a war, but no private citizen would ever need to use it for any reason.

[heavenlyboy34]

Any group, including government, has only the rights that the individual members of the group have. Therefore, if individuals do not have the right to keep and bear nuclear weapons, then neither does government.

Great answer! :) I wish I'd thought of it! :(

[sailor]

Having nukes is a relativley non-expensive way of dettering aggression.

[NMCB3]

Proper in this case would mean in a way as to not endanger the public. Nukes are dangerous things that cause massive death and destruction, there is no reason for a private citizen to use it. There might be limited scenarios where the military would need to use one in a war, but no private citizen would ever need to use it for any reason.The myriad of reasons one might hold, and the value placed upon a nuke are subjective and cannot be quantified. Of course if there is no victim there is no crime. If my nuke sits in its bunker for twenty years idle, where is the victim, where is the crime? The only "crime" could be that you and the King prohibit me from having one. The crime is therefore you and the king infringing upon my rights as a human being. Congratulations, your argument is the well honed argument of the state, designed to opress and regurgitated with minor variations throughout human history. :)

[nate895]

The myriad of reasons one might hold, and the value placed upon a nuke are subjective and cannot be quantified. Of course if there is no victim there is no crime. If my nuke sits in its bunker for twenty years idle, where is the victim, where is the crime? The only "crime" could be that you and the King prohibit me from having one. The crime is therefore you and the king infringing upon my rights as a human being. Congratulations, your argument is the well honed argument of the state, designed to opress and regurgitated with minor variations throughout human history. :)

Yes, it is very oppressive for government to not let you own a nuke. You can own a tank and enough weapons to equip large army, but by God, you need a nuke as well.

[Kludge]

I'd like the government to actively work within global bodies to sign non-proliferation/dismantling acts on as many weapons/vessels possible.

As for civilians, owning a nuke would be nearly impossible. Until all nukes known to exist in the world are dismantled, it should be illegal for civilians to own them.

[NMCB3]

Yes, it is very oppressive for government to not let you own a nuke. You can own a tank and enough weapons to equip large army, but by God, you need a nuke as well.I think you need to change your Barry Goldwater quote because by your own arguements "Extremism" in the defense of liberty certainly is a vice. :)

[NMCB3]

As for civilians, owning a nuke would be nearly impossible. Until all nukes known to exist in the world are dismantled, it should be illegal for civilians to own them.Another selfless defender of liberty on the Ron Paul forums.:rolleyes: Does this mean that after they are all dismantled you will then allow us peasants to possess them? :)

[Kludge]

Another selfless defender of liberty on the Ron Paul forums.:rolleyes: Does this mean that after they are all dismantled you will then allow us peasants to possess them? :)

No, there should probably always be a law against owning nuclear weapons as a safe-guard. ;)

[nate895]

I think you need to change your Barry Goldwater quote because by your own arguements "Extremism" in the defense of liberty certainly is a vice. :)

It isn't "extremist" to own a nuke. It's downright insane. It's not like when a gun misfires it only causes minor damage (maybe a death), a nuclear weapon would kill a whole city, and everything inside it will be lost because of some wack-job who doesn't know how to maintain it, just needed to have a nuke.

[heavenlyboy34]

It isn't "extremist" to own a nuke. It's downright insane. It's not like when a gun misfires it only causes minor damage (maybe a death), a nuclear weapon would kill a whole city, and everything inside it will be lost because of some wack-job who doesn't know how to maintain it, just needed to have a nuke.

So, seeing as governments are notorious for being far more irresponsible than individuals(see bank bailouts, stupid wars, and so on ad infinitum)-should the government be disallowed from "owning" nukes too?

[FindLiberty]

So, seeing as governments are notorious for being far more irresponsible than individuals(see bank bailouts, stupid wars, and so on ad infinitum)-should the government be disallowed from "owning" nukes too?

Go for it, say YES to not restricting nukes for the common folks! I don't think anyone will sleep any better with one under their (lead) pillow.

NIMBY Nuke discussion is a waste of time IMO. Concentrate on restoring Liberty and getting rid of the State.

Nukes are insane government killing devices, not much good for clearing stumps from the field or home defense. (Though I could see an Atlantic City Casino considering the elimination of ALL Las Vegas competition. But wait, if gambling was not prohibited, there would be no incentive to concentrate gambling in the first place. I think the threat and problems just go away without the Nanny State creating a new threat to life and liberty every minute 24x7.)

Nukes should "go away" along with government "overkill" as the US Constitution is restored. Keep in mind there are many, easier WMD options that don't require expensive maintenance or 5,000 year lethal radiation mitigation and cleanup efforts. It does not take long to regulate down to the nail file and get us right where we are now. (bring all those offshore businesses and outsourced jobs back home by eliminating the entire competing countries as we "get rid of" our nukes over their population centers???)

They are so expensive there should not be many/any non-government nukes left floating around for an individual to build/buy and "own". Except maybe Bill Gates if he wants to own a few to really go after LINUX.

Someday the technology may get to the point anyone could hot-wire their own Delorian's Mr. Fusion and poof, they' become the first on their block to be the last on their block, everybody dies. How about a "AAA plutonium battery" getting tossed in the drinking water supply by accident?

http://www.happynameday.com/bttf/fusion4.jpg

So, maybe that fusion car mfr will incorporate a breath test and sanity scan before you can drive it, or open the hood so they won't have to pay for cleanup and "loss of city" compensation damages.

I sure would not want the gubermint's unintended consequences lurking around from their SOP (failed) attempts to head off trouble and make fusion safe, 'cause the government has such a horrid track record of failures.

[Zavoi]

At some point the possession of weapons rises to the level of a threat against other people's lives and property. Clearly, at one extreme, a pocket knife does not qualify on this count, since there are numerous legitimate reasons why someone might have a pocket knife (among them being self-defense). On the other hand, weapons of mass destruction by their nature cannot be used for legitimate self-defense (since a large amount of collateral damage will result), and so the possession of such weapons constitutes a threat of aggression. By analogy, if I point a loaded gun at your head and promise not to shoot, then even though I have not "actually" invaded your person or property, my actions constitute a threat irrespective of my words, and you would be entitled to make me stop pointing the gun at you. I might protest and say that my intent is not to shoot but to live out my childhood dream of being a cowboy (or some other such strange reason), but no reasonable person would conclude that going so far as to point a gun at you would cause you to feel anything but fear for your life/property. So it is with nukes.

I suppose it could be argued that a nuclear bomb located in a remote area could possibly have legitimate, non-aggressive uses (e.g., an offshore oil drilling company might want to detonate a nuke to blast a hole in the ocean floor), but certainly having one in a populated area should not be allowed.


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 of nuclear or similar weapons, or the threat thereof, is a sin and a crime against humanity for which there can be no justification.{Source (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard26.html)}

[NMCB3]

Originally Posted by Murray N. Rothbard
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 of nuclear or similar weapons, or the threat thereof, is a sin and a crime against humanity for which there can be no justification.{


I disagree with Rothbard here. This statement does not appear to follow the Non-Aggression Axiom, which is the foundation of libertarianism. Suppose I’m an eccentric collector of nuclear weapons who owns them simply for reasons of psychic value. By merely possessing them I am committing no more of an aggressive action than if I owned a cannon. There has been no aggression committed and there has been no threat made. Possession of a weapon, regardless of what the weapon is, does not constitute even an implied threat.:)

[nickcoons]

I dream of the day when government has been reduced (or eliminated, as the case may be) such that it serves no function except to protect the rights of the individual, and does so without initiating force, that we have a free market, and that freedom of association is preserved against the initiation of force or fraud; such that the only political issue we are left to resolve is whether or not the private ownership of nuclear weapons is legitimate.

[Andrew-Austin]

I disagree with Rothbard here. This statement does not appear to follow the Non-Aggression Axiom, which is the foundation of libertarianism. Suppose I’m an eccentric collector of nuclear weapons who owns them simply for reasons of psychic value. By merely possessing them I am committing no more of an aggressive action than if I owned a cannon. There has been no aggression committed and there has been no threat made. Possession of a weapon, regardless of what the weapon is, does not constitute even an implied threat.:)

Whether you have intent to use it or not, the nature of the bomb still stands as a huge threat to the entire human race and planet. There is no guarantee that the bomb may be stolen from you & or accidentally detonated. Simply owning the bomb is threatening everyone. Zavoi explained it pretty well, might as well hold a knife an inch away from someones neck and say you have no intent to cut them.

Its like saying you should be able to own a black hole generator for the sake of sentimentality, even though the potential for it to be accidentally activated and sucking the planet into oblivion exists.

[trey4sports]

At some point the possession of weapons rises to the level of a threat against other people's lives and property. Clearly, at one extreme, a pocket knife does not qualify on this count, since there are numerous legitimate reasons why someone might have a pocket knife (among them being self-defense). On the other hand, weapons of mass destruction by their nature cannot be used for legitimate self-defense (since a large amount of collateral damage will result), and so the possession of such weapons constitutes a threat of aggression. By analogy, if I point a loaded gun at your head and promise not to shoot, then even though I have not "actually" invaded your person or property, my actions constitute a threat irrespective of my words, and you would be entitled to make me stop pointing the gun at you. I might protest and say that my intent is not to shoot but to live out my childhood dream of being a cowboy (or some other such strange reason), but no reasonable person would conclude that going so far as to point a gun at you would cause you to feel anything but fear for your life/property. So it is with nukes.

I suppose it could be argued that a nuclear bomb located in a remote area could possibly have legitimate, non-aggressive uses (e.g., an offshore oil drilling company might want to detonate a nuke to blast a hole in the ocean floor), but certainly having one in a populated area should not be allowed.


as the OP i have to say this is my favorite answer so far

[sailor]

I am laying my hands on a nuke the first chance I get.

I am putting it in my basement with the pickled cucumbers and spreading the word around I will no more tolerate state infrigments on my rights!

Then let them try to tax me!

[AutoDas]

Stop presenting these hypothetical canards. There has never been a private citizen that owned a nuke. For private citizens it becomes a liability to maintain and store a nuke and you will not be able to get insured. At least when the "liberals" try to ban something there is something that triggered their reaction.

[NMCB3]

Whether you have intent to use it or not, the nature of the bomb still stands as a huge threat to the entire human race and planet. There is no guarantee that the bomb may be stolen from you & or accidentally detonated. Simply owning the bomb is threatening everyone. Zavoi explained it pretty well, might as well hold a knife an inch away from someones neck and say you have no intent to cut them.

Its like saying you should be able to own a black hole generator for the sake of sentimentality, even though the potential for it to be accidentally activated and sucking the planet into oblivion exists.Sorry, but you have no right nor authority to dictate what I can and cannot own. No victim no crime...libertarianism 101. :)

[Andrew-Austin]

Sorry, but you have no right nor authority to dictate what I can and cannot own. No victim no crime...libertarianism 101. :)


And you have no right to put a gun to my head, and squeal that you'll be really careful not to pull the trigger.

Oh shucks, if only I was as principled as you.

[heavenlyboy34]

Stop presenting these hypothetical canards. There has never been a private citizen that owned a nuke. For private citizens it becomes a liability to maintain and store a nuke and you will not be able to get insured. At least when the "liberals" try to ban something there is something that triggered their reaction.

At one time, it was impossible for a civilian to blast into space. However, that billionaire guy did it about 3 years ago. Ya never know what technology will do. :eek:

[heavenlyboy34]

And you have no right to put a gun to my head, and sequel that you'll be really careful not to pull the trigger.

Oh shucks, if only I was as principled as you.

That's not a very good example. You're assuming that the owner of said nukes would have them armed and ready 24/7. However, as a defense, the owner of nukes would probably keep the warheads and miscellaneous gadgets stored till needed. People already do this with legal semi-automatic rifles and such things. :D

[heavenlyboy34]

sorry, but you have no right nor authority to dictate what i can and cannot own. No victim no crime...libertarianism 101. :)

+1776 :)

[The_Orlonater]

They are easily contained and much harder to have a misfire than a nuke, and when they do misfire, minimal comparative damage is done. Your insurance can cover a bazooka or grenade going off when you don't want it to. However, with nuclear weapons, an entire city is incinerated, and global climate is affected, not something any insurance company could handle, not to mention the millions upon millions of lives lost.

Bazooka,easy to contain? I wouldn't think so. Especially if it's loaded.

I don't mind and old antique one, especially if they don't make ammo for it. For a nice decoration.

A grenade, one mistake and many people will feel the sharp metal.

Guns are easier to contain, and can be used for self defense.

P.S. I also am for the government not being allowed to own nukes. Only if we engage in war, and it's Japan scenario. Then, I'd support it. Since it's a million to a low decimal chance.

Mine response is a "Fuck you, you murderous pricks."

[The_Orlonater]

+1776 :)

Because the founders were surely anarchists. :rolleyes:

[Andrew-Austin]

That's not a very good example. You're assuming that the owner of said nukes would have them armed and ready 24/7. However, as a defense, the owner of nukes would probably keep the warheads and miscellaneous gadgets stored till needed. People already do this with legal semi-automatic rifles and such things. :D

I'm not assuming anything, he could have it stored away, but it could be stolen among many other possibilities.

I do know that one nuke could fuck over the entire human race through nuclear winter, and there is no sane human being on the planet who would keep a nuke for the sake of collecting it.


Because the founders were surely anarchists. :rolleyes:

And they knew what nuclear bombs were too.

[heavenlyboy34]

Because the founders were surely anarchists. :rolleyes:

On a relative scale, some could be called such. If the feds had nukes back then, I'm sure many of them would take my position. :D Besides, what's wrong with political anarchy? :)

[The_Orlonater]

And they knew what nuclear bombs were too.


How thoughtful of them.

[The_Orlonater]

On a relative scale, some could be called such. If the feds had nukes back then, I'm sure many of them would take my position. :D Besides, what's wrong with political anarchy? :)

Define political anarchy. It, IMO, can be interpreted in many ways.

No political parties?

I'm not for the Federal Government having nukes, I edited my post to point that out.

[heavenlyboy34]

Define political anarchy. It, IMO, can be interpreted in many ways.

No political parties?

I'm not for the Federal Government having nukes, I edited my post to point that out.

Anarchy, in the simplest definition (to me), is simply a lack of centralized organization. Checks and balances on against people becoming too dangerous (dangerous use of nukes in this case) is handled by what's generally called "spontaneous organization" or "spontaneous order". :D

[The_Orlonater]

Anarchy, in the simplest definition (to me), is simply a lack of centralized organization. Checks and balances on against people becoming too dangerous (dangerous use of nukes in this case) is handled by what's generally called "spontaneous organization" or "spontaneous order". :D

No central organization. Anarchy, in it's simplest, form is lack of leaders. That's what the affix(Or suffix, I might of made a mistake defining whether it's a suffix or prefix, sorry).

If the Federal Government was abolished, and the authority went to the states. There would be no authority. It keeps subdiving from States to counties, to communities and so on. Anarchy is without any leaders, or elected officials.

Besides, I don't believe in governments owning nukes. Or anybody for that matter.

[heavenlyboy34]

One other thing...

I think some of my opponents in this debate assume that the government is better at handling nukes and dealing in "nuclear diplomacy". However, it should be noted that even though Japan sued for peace in American courts, the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to make a political statement-not to "bring peace to the Pacific".

Since the government is so bad at these things, how could a responsible private sector be any worse?

[Andrew-Austin]

One other thing...

I think some of my opponents in this debate assume that the government is better at handling nukes and dealing in "nuclear diplomacy". However, it should be noted that even though Japan sued for peace in American courts, the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to make a political statement-not to "bring peace to the Pacific".

Since the government is so bad at these things, how could a responsible private sector be any worse?

No one has said anything about the government being more responsible about nukes, at least I have not, its not about that.

I have nothing against anarchism really, I'm just trying to be practical here. Its easy to speak hypothetically on this forum that, "oh it'd just work out and nothing would happen", but in real life no one in good conscious could take this very seriously. I said in an earlier post, that when making the transition to a more libertarian society all nukes would have to be destroyed. What if some statist screwball decided to just hold on to a nuke as part of his weapons collection, then a year later decide to hold an entire city ransom with it?

You don't think voluntary communities would unanimously opt to destroy any nuclear weapons no matter who owned them in their area?

[The_Orlonater]

Was this directed towards me, because I don't believe in huge governments, especially owning nukes.

[heavenlyboy34]

No one has said anything about the government being more responsible about nukes, at least I have not, its not about that.

I have nothing against anarchism really, I'm just trying to be practical here. Its easy to speak hypothetically on this forum that, "oh it'd just work out and nothing would happen", but in real life no one in good conscious could take this very seriously. I said in an earlier post, that when making the transition to a more libertarian society all nukes would have to be destroyed. What if some statist screwball decided to just hold on to a nuke as part of his weapons collection, then a year later decide to hold an entire city ransom with it?

I totally agree. Nuclear disarmament would be very practical once the gov'ment is disarmed first. :D

[Matt Collins]

As a super power in a world of mad warring nations, we then decide to establish means for defense only. Except that MAD is a legitimate defense sadly enough.



My point by saying all of this is:
If it were not for big government, if we had been living in a libertarian society all along, the atom bomb would not have been invented.
Except that some nation would've invented it at one point or another.

[Matt Collins]

On the other hand, weapons of mass destruction by their nature cannot be used for legitimate self-defense (since a large amount of collateral damage will result), and so the possession of such weapons constitutes a threat of aggression. What about MAD? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction


Deterrence is a defense, right?

[Zavoi]

Deterrence is a defense, right?
Yes, but MAD as self-defense isn't legitimate, in that it involves the threat of force against innocent third parties who happen to be in the geographical vicinity of your enemy.

[Mini-Me]

The myriad of reasons one might hold, and the value placed upon a nuke are subjective and cannot be quantified. Of course if there is no victim there is no crime. If my nuke sits in its bunker for twenty years idle, where is the victim, where is the crime? The only "crime" could be that you and the King prohibit me from having one. The crime is therefore you and the king infringing upon my rights as a human being. Congratulations, your argument is the well honed argument of the state, designed to opress and regurgitated with minor variations throughout human history. :)

If a private individual possesses a nuclear weapon, their mere possession of it would constitute a clear and perhaps imminent threat of violence. When someone is pointing a gun at you, the threat is dire enough that you are justified using force to disarm him or to even eliminate the threat entirely. Even if the gun isn't loaded or they're just joking, you have no way of knowing that, and you're within your rights to defend yourself from the threat.* When a nuke is just sitting in your bunker, you're basically pointing a gun at an entire city of people, and therefore, they have the right to defend themselves from the threat. After all, there is no legitimate "defensive" use for a nuke. You cannot defend your home with it, you cannot defend your city with it, etc. If some crazy old man goes through the trouble of obtaining a nuke, he's almost certainly planning on using it. Even if he's just an "eccentric collector," nobody else knows for sure that he's not an eccentric collector who is seconds away from vaporizing a city - you don't store a nuke for "benign" reasons for the same reason you don't point a gun at somebody for "benign" reasons: People will take you seriously and do what they must to survive, and they are well within their rights to respond seriously to threats that are too late to address once they're carried through.

*By the way, this is completely different from preemptive war between nations based on threats of violence. On the level of wars between nations, you will still have time to defend yourself afterwards if another country attacks you. On the personal level, though - when someone's pointing a gun at you or arming a nuke next-door - your only chance for action is before they "pull the trigger."

Also, thanks to NickCoons for helping me with this argument a couple weeks back. ;)


Yes, but MAD as self-defense isn't legitimate, in that it involves the threat of force against innocent third parties who happen to be in the geographical vicinity of your enemy.
Yup.

[Mini-Me]

No one has said anything about the government being more responsible about nukes, at least I have not, its not about that.

I have nothing against anarchism really, I'm just trying to be practical here. Its easy to speak hypothetically on this forum that, "oh it'd just work out and nothing would happen", but in real life no one in good conscious could take this very seriously. I said in an earlier post, that when making the transition to a more libertarian society all nukes would have to be destroyed. What if some statist screwball decided to just hold on to a nuke as part of his weapons collection, then a year later decide to hold an entire city ransom with it?

You don't think voluntary communities would unanimously opt to destroy any nuclear weapons no matter who owned them in their area?

We can say all we like about how the government is horrible, inefficient, and even tyrannical, but there's no doubting they're better custodians of nuclear weapons than, say...the Columbine shooters would have been (or anyone else who's life goal is to take as many people with them as possible...which is the kind of private individual who is by far the most likely to seek out nuclear weapons). ;)

BTW, I noticed that Zavoi made comments a few pages back about the legitimacy of responding to the threat of force, and they were very similar to my previous post...so, consider my post a "me too." :D

[NMCB3]

And you have no right to put a gun to my head, and squeal that you'll be really careful not to pull the trigger.

Oh shucks, if only I was as principled as you.I`m not putting a gun to your head with my idle nuke any more than I`m putting a gun to your head with my cannon. Besides your the only one squealing here, squealing because I`m not doing what you believe I should do, not living my life according to your rules What would be next in our hypothetical scenario? Would you get together with your tyrannical friends and force me to comply with your demands? Are you the state?:)

[NMCB3]

If a private individual possesses a nuclear weapon, their mere possession of it would constitute a clear and perhaps imminent threat of violence. When someone is pointing a gun at you, the threat is dire enough that you are justified using force to disarm him or to even eliminate the threat entirely. Even if the gun isn't loaded or they're just joking, you have no way of knowing that, and you're within your rights to defend yourself from the threat.* When a nuke is just sitting in your bunker, you're basically pointing a gun at an entire city of people, and therefore, they have the right to defend themselves from the threat. No I`m not "basically" pointing a gun at you any more than I`m pointing a gun at you driving around in my armored personnel carrier. If you aggressed against me and my nuke I would be well within my right to defend myself from you the aggressor in this case.


After all, there is no legitimate "defensive" use for a nuke. You cannot defend your home with it, you cannot defend your city with it, etc. What you think is the proper use for my property is irrelevant.


If some crazy old man goes through the trouble of obtaining a nuke, he's almost certainly planning on using it. Even if he's just an "eccentric collector," nobody else knows for sure that he's not an eccentric collector who is seconds away from vaporizing a city - you don't store a nuke for "benign" reasons for the same reason you don't point a gun at somebody for "benign" reasons: People will take you seriously and do what they must to survive, and they are well within their rights to respond seriously to threats that are too late to address once they're carried through. This sounds a lot like the Salem witch burnings, they believed that certain people were a threat and killed them. Those innocent people had aggressed against no one.


*By the way, this is completely different from preemptive war between nations based on threats of violence. On the level of wars between nations, you will still have time to defend yourself afterwords if another country attacks you. On the personal level, though - when someone's pointing a gun at you or arming a nuke next-door - your only chance for action is before they "pull the trigger."What you are describing is exactly the doctrine of preemptive war. You assume I`m a threat so you justify in your own mind initiating violence against me, just like the people in Salem. Because of your fear, you toss the non-aggression axiom and therefore libertarianism out the window. Congratulations, you have just destroyed the free society. You and your murdering friends can now assume the role of the State, our little expirement in freedom is over. :)

[Matt Collins]

Yes, but MAD as self-defense isn't legitimate, in that it involves the threat of force against innocent third parties who happen to be in the geographical vicinity of your enemy.Collateral damage?

[Andrew-Austin]

I`m not putting a gun to your head with my idle nuke any more than I`m putting a gun to your head with my cannon. Besides your the only one squealing here, squealing because I`m not doing what you believe I should do, not living my life according to your rules What would be next in our hypothetical scenario? Would you get together with your tyrannical friends and force me to comply with your demands? Are you the state?:)

Your just being a Mr. abstract hypothetical turd now, and its not making for a very interesting convo.

If we lived in anarchy, and I tried to convince you as politely as I could to destroy your collection of nukes, you would in fact do so.