I erected no strawman, so stop the accusations. All I did was to show why this response is unsound:
You misunderstand Rothbard’s argument as for the very owning, or possessing of a WMD is threat, and a deterring force. One cannot just say: “We just own this thermo-nuclear warhead, its not like its a threat to you”, or “We just own all of this nerve agent, it is no threat to you.”
In the end though, if you have problems with the way I have represented Rothbard’s argument, take it up with Stranger for all I have claimed to be doing is refuting the argument that I originally quote. Furthermore, if you believe my refutation of that is unsound, actually explain why rather than saying I have erected a strawman, and arguing by assertion.
The people who go on about Israel never like to be reminded that Israel has nukes, and Israel refuses weapons inspections, that were apparently a good enough reason to attack Saddam Hussein. Oh double standards…
You’ve carried it on. Your response to Wanderer is correct, however your attribution / concession that Rothbard held the same view as what Wanderer stipulated, is completely erroneous - because he didn’t.
That is not his argument at all. And you haven’t even once referred to the primary source, you should probably do that.
“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.
Substitute nuclear weapon for gun as you have done earlier and you get:
“the use or the threat thereof of a [using a] gun, is a sin and a crime… for which there can be no justification.” (Back to WMD’s - unless:“The only exception would be the extremely rare case where a mass of people who were all criminals inhabited a vast geographical area.”) So there is a possible rare case for justification…
Owning the gun is not a threat, nor a crime… it is just an object. Owning a golf club is not a threat, nor a crime… However, using the gun / golf club on innocent people or threatening the initiation of violence against innocent people - is a crime. And this follows along with every single other thing Rothbard has written on the issue.
What exactly is not understood?
I’ll take it up with whoever I believe to be making / propagating a fallacious assertion and attributing bs to someone who never held such a view.
It’s not, your deductions of it are accurate - imo, it’s just that Rothbard never held that view… so it should not be attributed to him.
The thing that is frustrating about living in a stateful society is that we have to discuss hypothetical situations that would likely be un-realistic in a stateless society.
It is indeed a problem because statists are going to ask about problems that are typically belonging to stateful societies, and assume that they are equally prone in stateless society’s than proceed to assume something must be done about it.
You know, I’ll never understand the position of a libertarian who denounces WMD. They are the only way to stop inter-state wars! How many wars (not skirmishes) have taken place between nuclear powers? How many would have taken place hadn’t nukes ever been invested? How many deaths have been spared? At the very least and would have maimed each other for decades, not to mention NATO and the WarPac. Or when did the only nuclear attacks ever recorded take place? Perhaps when only one power possesed such weapons? But that should come as no surprise to economists…or should it?
If it where up to me do decide, I’d sell nuclear technology right away to Germany, Ukraine, Turkey, Italy, both Koreas, Japan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Taiwan, Indonesia, Australia, Canada, Mexico, and whichever other nations willing to pay the price. In a statist world balance-of-power is as good as it shall ever get when it comes to peace (all hail Metternich!).
Imagine a world where nuclear weapons are produces rather cheaply: no more wars. And we all know that if a state stops expanding it must fall. Can’t we see the opportunity we have been given here?
But I will say this: The only reason we haven’t invaded iran is because they have nukes. Same with Nkorea. US foriegn policy sends a huge message to the world: We will invade you if we don’t like you but if you have WMDs we won’t.
This means that WMDs are the only feasible means of self defense against the US. Doesn’t this mean its okay for small powers to have WMDs? It is illegit for large powers to have WMDs because they can serve no defensive advantage, though I think that I agree with what Merlin is saying that WMDs are a sound strategy for defense in some cases.
Except Iran doesn`t have nukes. The reason Iran has not been invaded is that the US military is stretched thin and in no position to invade it and that therefore only the Air Force has been pushing for a showdown.
Democracy does not give rights to governments - negative rights (restrictions on government power) are defined, but then the government is allowed to interpret whether it follows the rules or not. This is a completely deficient system.
Neither the U.S. nor Iran are a democracy.
Governments in general do not have prohibitions placed upon them by the people they claim to represent that they shall not have nuclear weapons. Those nations that do have such restrictions - good for them. The U.S. has no such restrictions on itself. Iran has no such restrictions on itself.
Governments operate by force or coercion, not rights. The very existence of a government violates the rights of those it claims to represent.
Governments may from time to time enter into treaties with other governments. This is done for political reasons. Governments also break treaties. The U.S. does this routinely as the political climate changes every 4 years or so on average depending on which party is in power. Iran is free to break whatever treaty it wishes to break, but then must be able to handle the political consequences, including war.
Iran is in the process of developing long range ballistic missiles (test fired a mid-range missile today) and nuclear detonators that are only used for nuclear weapons (as reported earlier this week). The argument that Iran is not after offensive nuclear weapons doesn’t stand against the facts.
Nuclear weapons are not defensive weapons. Nuclear weapons are used for one purpose and one purpose only - to kill people in mass numbers. A nation may have a policy that uses the threat of a nuclear attack as a defensive measure, but this is aggression and a provocation to war. The U.S. and Russia are still in the state of this form of aggression despite the declaration that the Cold War is over. By developing nuclear weapons to “defend” itself from Israel, Iran will have committed aggression and provoked war. But let’s put this into perspective. Israel has essentially become a satellite nuclear base for the U.S., while Iran is becoming the same for Russia. The proliferation of nuclear weapons is inevitable, and no treaty is capable of stopping that.
An individual who creates a nuclear weapon is violating the NAP because the form, fit and function of a nuclear weapon is offensive and not defensive. This is much different from an individual who creates a nuclear power plant, because its function is power generation.
Well, Israel is wise to be discreet about things. But I also dont worry about Iran because their goverment is getting weaker and more unpopular everyday.
“Function”? Who cares? The NAP can only be broken by…actually breaking it! Not wanting to break it! Only the detonation of a nuclear device on innocents can break the NAP, not the posibility thereof.
Your point being? We’re not commiting the holistic fallacy. The use of the word “government” could just as easily be “state agent”. Government is just shorthand, in this case, for individuals organized as a government. And those individuals do have rights.
Actually, the U.S. is a democracy. The rulers of the U.S. are democratically elected.
Operating within a framework of rights and employing coercion are not mutually exclusive. In fact, sometimes government does provide legitimate services to its citizens.
I would like some links to all this. If they do develop them, good for them. And good for the entire region and maybe even the world.
If an aggressor sends an armada or tank column to invade your country, and your government nukes it, how has it been used aggressively? The simple fact is that it can be used defensively, just like any weapon can be. The potential for collateral damage is greater, because of the weapons destructive power, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is possible and even practical to use defensively without any collateral damage, making it a perfectly libertarian weapon.
By the way, this “state of aggression” between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. cost far fewer lives than most contemporary conflits between great powers precisely because both sides were armed with nuclear weapons. Overall, this “state of aggression” is preferable to a lack of this “state of aggression”.
The only criminal would be the jerk who tries to stop him.
Threatening to launch it on innocents is considered aggression as well. Having a gun in a holster is not aggression. Pulling it out and pointing it at someone is. Same with WMDs. Having a WMD is not aggression. Threatening to launch it is.
Not sure what’s up with the site today, or if it’s on my end. Damn Al Gore and his internets!
I had a lengthy response that was lost because of the problem. I may have to cover my points separately when I have the opportunity, and that might not be today.