I was recently debating a leftist on teh interwebz and posed the question to him that converted me from libertarian minarchism to anarcho-capitalism. the question was ‘can you think of a situation where a violation of the NAP would be morally justifiable?’ I couldn’t think of an awnser when I first challenged myself several months ago, so I accepted the principle, rejected taxation, and framed my picture of Rothbard. When I asked this leftist gentleman the same question, he posed the following scenario:
“Lets say a cult decides to build a device that may theoretically end the world in order to take them to their religious end. Their intention is only to practice their religion, not harm anyone else. Their most sacred documents call for the creation of this device, a device that scientists believe has a 45% chance of ending all life on the planet. There is no intended aggression on the cults part and they assure you that the device will not do as the scientist say. What do you do?”
So…thoughts anyone? Does this qualify as a threat of aggression?
I would prefer to stay away from the ‘that technology doesn’t exist’ objection, simply because I’m absolutely positive that science will get us there one day. Might as well hash it out now.
Intent is irrelevant in this case. If I point a gun at you with my finger on the trigger, I am threatening you, whether or not I think it’s really a magic wand.
Seconding Wombie, we can’t charge intent, only action. It is impossible to conclusively know the motive of another. Even if a man announces his intention to kill you, does not mean he will follow through on it, and likewise, a man may say nothing about his disdain for you, and murder you in your sleep.
So physically stoping them would be consistent with the NAP because regardless of their intent, they have threatened you? Have I misunderstood what you meant?
I have the impression that Rothbard himself may have supported defensive force in such a scenario, if we assume that the device in question is nuclear weapons. Seek out what Rothbard had to say about nuclear weapons and disarmament. I think he regarded the mere possession of such weapons as an inherent use or threat of force.
i remember Block wrote an essay examining the ‘threat’ , he analysed it like a boundary problem. it involved guns and people crammed in phone booths. also there was an epic thread on the anarcho-cpaitalism facebook group sometime ago on the issue of nuclear weapons.
I’ve discussed this to some degree on my blog, but the things is: I don’t want to come across as some spamming whore, and don’t want to start a big pissing match.
David Friedman has an essay on some of the NAP’s problems here:
Im familiar with that chapter, a long time ago i had read the whole book. i thought it was a great book. Friedman is here pointing out boundary problems. These are precisely the problems Block grapples with in the link i posted; are you familiar with his position?