I agree with Block: nukes should be banned, except in some super freaky scenario. But a consistent follower of the NAP would have to allow someone to own nukes until he uses one in an un-libertarian way. Simply owning nukes is not aggression, but I’m still in favor of banning them (for the same reasons as Block and Rothbard)
As for the rest of Block’s essay..I don’t feel that he sufficiently address the arguments made by Friedman, which are quite hard to refute.
“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?”
Heh, is this story already becoming true?
http://right-thinking.com/index.php/weblog/comments/black_hole_sun/
the estopppel approach might be useful, stuff about being supersensitive to faint light crossing property borders, i.e. if i object to the faint light falling in my yard then everyone around me can object similarly and we will all live in darkness. or and if this is moral but unhappy we can sell up and move out, or just concede that faint light is not a problem worth worrying about.
Sure, everyone could agree to put up with it, but that doesn’t change the “rights-violation” dilemma.
invited light does not consitute an invasion. so if you agree that they all put up with it rather than risk being estopped then you concede that none of their rights are violated.
It is hard to say what light counts as “invited,” since nobody goes around asking permission before using light. Is it invited if one doesn’t complain about it?
Let’s say it’s late at night, and there’s a big city outside my window, with thousands of tiny fluttering lights. Have I invited it?
Or: let’s say everyone around me wants to live in darkness. I have a small light on in one window of my house. Have I committed a tort?
Also, say someone breaks into my house and steals my tv. I know who it is, but don’t contact the police, deciding I’ll just let him go. I’m “putting up with it,” yes, but stealing is still a violation of the NAP.
i think it would be useful for me to contrast it against other ‘rights violations’ where not objectiving or defending against is not tolerance,forgivness or invitation.
e.g. quite right if the state wants to tax earning and we grumble yet fork over, we dont invite or forgive (though maybe we tolerate)
so what is different about someone shinging light through your window.
well, there are other times you shine lights on others windows, so if you consciously dont object because you want to enjoy the same light shinig onto your neighbours priveledge you have as good as invited and forgiven others exercising that action in their way,
in contrast, imagine if i taxed you and you taxed me , if the reason i dont object to you taxing me is because i dont want to you to stop me taxing you then this is significantly different enough from the first case, it has more the appeareance of invitation/forginvess/positive acceptance. though i concede that the language i am using here is clumsy.
Suppose they don’t tolerate it, and deny giving any permission–implicit or otherwise. Have I committed a tort?
Keep in mind: this is just the subject of light. We won’t even get into pollution, or the other numerous subjects that are tricky for the NAP. As far as I’m concerned, even a single exception to the NAP (such as nuclear weapons) is enough to break the rule.
i am probably more likely to go full on hardcore no compromise the NAP so i am willing to entertain the concept that a small amount of light hitting someones property can be a violation, an invasion, it might breach the NAP. (imagine it effecting their developing poloroid film or just some crazy guy that hates light shining on his property at a certain hour and is just peculiar about that) . i dont think its a practical problem because i think market law solves this (i.e. conforms to but goes beyond natural law )
None if it is “tricky”. The problem is libertarians trying to solve everything by way of armchair reasoning. Yes, if the light does bother you and if you entered into an area where there is no contractual agreement to such “violations” you have every right to sue and it is then up to an arbiter to decide for or against you. Pollution is also not a problem. Why do people think it is? Rothbard handles it just fine in his article on air pollution. Friedman just concocts a list of problems and then decides ex cathedra that the NAP can’t handle them, as if it were not accompanied by a suitable legal system to handle these issues. Some people seem to want to define the NAP so stringently, only so that they may say they don’t support it but some attenuated version thereof. Consentual “violations” though are not an issue for it… If everyone agrees to put up with it (so that they may also enjoy certain benefits, e.g. using lights), it is no longer a “violation”.
Yes, if the light does bother you and if you entered into an area where there is no contractual agreement to such “violations” you have every right to sue and it is then up to an arbiter to decide for or against you.
This assumes that everyone signs on to “contractual agreements” before using any light (which I’ve never heard of)–including the people living in a city miles away from me. And whether or not people agree to accept these violations doesn’t anwer the question of whether they are violations.
Pollution is also not a problem. Why do people think it is?
It is a huge problem (for the NAP, at least). Pollution is a subtle form of aggression that takes many forms and is impossible to get rid of. The source of it can be nearly impossible to trace.
Rothbard handles it just fine in his article on air pollution.
Hah! You really think so? I think it’s pretty weak stuff. And don’t get me wrong: Rothbard is probably my favorite libertarian.
See Holtz on pollution: http://libertarianmajority.net/can-torts-police-all-negative-externalities
(Obviously, I’m not endorsing any of his other views on minarchism, etc.)
Friedman just concocts a list of problems and then decides ex cathedra that the NAP can’t handle them, as if it were not accompanied by a suitable legal system to handle these issues.
This is a cop-out. We’re discussing morality, not whether a legal system finds someone innocent or guilty of something. If even tiny rights-violations are allowed, then the NAP is broken. I should add that I have my own problems with the NAP (seperate from Friedman’s), but it’s a can of worms I don’t want to open. 
as the rights of a rights violator can not be violated people who have neighbours lights hit them cant claim violation if they concurrently shine light onto their neighbours houses.
and you were wrong to suggest that Jon assumed anything, he said if X then Y, or else, if not-X then Z. where X was if there are contractual agreements in place upon asumming the property.
No, it assumes that when moving into an area you actually find out what is the generally accepted levels of “pollution” others are wiling to accept in turn for emiting it themselves. Regarding the violations, if they are tolerated/consented to, then they are not violations. It is purely up to the “victim” to seek restitution if they believe they are harmed. If they have no desire to, the problem ends there.
Assertion.
It’s up to the “victim” whether they want to seek restitution or not. If, for practical reasons, they seek not to, that’s their choice. Sounds like a technical problem to me,…
Yeah, I do. So what is “weak” about it?
No, it isn’t.
Allowed by whom? If it is genuine harm, it is under no circumstances allowed. If the “victims” consent, it isn’t harm. There is nothing problematic here.
You’re missing the point: if one believes in a pure NAP then even the most microscopic level of pollution is aggression and ripe for prosecution. Whether people decide to seek restitution is irrelevant.
If someone stabs me in the arm and I choose to ignore it, that doesn’t answer the question of whether it would be a rights-violation had I not chosen to ignore it.
You’re still not getting it: we aren’t discussing whether a person will seek restitution, but whether it’s even possible for a society to exist without aggression. For instance, can a ‘victim’ seek restitution if I breathe? CO2 is a pollutant, as Friedman points out, so breathing could be called aggression.
See the Holtz article, or any other critique. If there’s a huge disgusting factory right next door, polluting all over your land and crops (as is often the case in libertarian articles), then the Rothbard approach works. But things are rarely this clear cut in real life..
Can anyone show where Rothbard said holders of WMDs should be violently disposed? I’ve don’t think I’ve ever read him say that.
I do recall him saying that the USA should unilaterally disarm, but that’s not the same thing.
So then GW Bush’s argument that he can invade Iraq because they possess WMDs was valid?
I find your logic strange. Is the idea to attack anyone who owns a nuke in order to take it away from them? Is that really a good idea?
As for Friedman, his lack of legal training shows. He does point out some complex issue, but they are issues with common knowledge solutions.
Consider the following example. A madman is about to open fire on a crowd; if he does so numerous innocent people will die. The only way to prevent him is to shoot him with a rifle that is within reach of several members of the crowd. The rifle is on the private property of its legitimate owner. He is a well known misanthrope who has publicly stated on numerous occasions that he is opposed to letting anyone use his rifle without his permission, even if it would save hundreds of lives.
Two questions now arise. The first is whether members of the crowd have a right to take the rifle and use it to shoot the madman. The answer of libertarian rights theory, as I understand it, is no. The owner of the rifle is not responsible for the existence of the madman, and the fact that his rifle is, temporarily, of enormous value to other people does not give them a right to take it.
The answer to this one is particularity obvious. Being threatened by a madman does not transfer you ownership of the rifle. All david friedman has done is create a scenario where the consequences of stealing are less than the consequences of not stealing. So what any sane person would do would be to borrow the rifle and then accept the consequences of having done so, possibility paying the owner a small sum for temporary use of his rifle.
Actually from what I read yesterday, it doesn’t look like he was in favor of unilateral disarmament.
Yawn…I never claimed the state should go around violently disarming other states. [|-)]
But in a libertarian society, it shouldn’t be legal to have nukes–they’re inherently un-libertarian. And I certainly don’t want any state to have them, especially not the US.
I’m pretty sure he’s a professor of law.
I agree that’s how it would be handled, but you’re glossing over the issue of morality. If you believe in the NAP, you would have to concede that grabbing the rifle is an immoral act.
Nobody said this is a utopia in the making, but will the society be better? I think so. So it would be immoral for him to grab the gun. But who said immorality would cease to exist? In real-time decisions need to be made and as somebody pointed out earlier in this thread “arm-chair” solutions help plan out the best solution, but when the sh-t hits the fan it’s time to act. So the decision going through my head while somebody is to about to fire on me in a crowd is being weighed in my mind, “Do I get murdered or just take the gun and defend my life and face responsibility for my actions?” answer: take the gun… Now of course I’m not thinking of all these equations and property rights violations of gun or death by murderer. I don’t have time. Weigh the value of being alive or face responsibility for violating somebody’s property I borrowed? Barely a thought would finish entering my mind and I would be running for the gun to save my life and possibly others. NAP is universal. Yet the admittance is this is not a utopian society and problems will arise. And the property rights of the gun owner has been violated also according to NAP, so, now the gun stealer will need to face responsibility for his actions of stealing the gun. I don’t see how NAP ceases to exist. Justice restores harmony where harmony was/is lost.