Gun Control, Property Rights & Acceptable Risk

Economics Political Theory
1

I have been thinking about gun control, my starting point was “why is it OK to have a gun but not a nuclear weapon”, and I have read a lot of the threads on the topic in these forums and the most convincing argument I found was this article by Walter Block:
http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/theory_gun_control.pdf

I can accept, within Block’s geo-spacial dimension, that a gun can be targetted as a weapon of defence at only an aggressor, whilst a nuclear weapon cannot. I can also accept (just) that the ownership of a nuclear weapon can be considered as a threat in and of itself without use, or threat of use, because its lack of alternative peaceful uses mskes its existence a threat of violence.

But, on reflection, I don’t think this is really the issue, because what if I don’t have a nuclear weapon, what if I have a new energy device that powers my home. The only problem is that if I knock it over it will explode with enough violence to destroy the entire planet.

My device has a perfectly legitimate use, so Block’s arguments against owning a nuclear weapon do not apply.

The issue in this case becomes the trade off between the right to own property and the risk of causing violence to others.

I would argue that if my neighbour installed such a device it represents as much of an immediate threat of violence to me as if he pulls out a knife and lunges towards me and I have the right to use force to protect myself and my property.

I know that Rothbard says that threats of violence must be immediate, etc, but perhaps the degree of immediacy is moderated by the severity of the potential threat. It might be necessary to wait for a man with a knife to lunge at you, but if a man starts setting up a gatling gun in a school yard, is it really necessary to wait for him to point at the first child before having the right to intervene.

Do I have to wait until my neighbours device is in the process of being knocked over, before I have the right to try and prevent myself and everyone else being blown up ?

If we adopt the view that it is not simply the immediacy of the threat but its severity that determines the right to self defence then perhaps both the weapon and the dangerous energy device scenarios could be dealt with.

.

2

Individuals should be allowed to have nukes, but Government’s should not.

3

You would reallly want to live in society where your neighbour has a nuke?
He might not maintain it properly and it accidently destroys you, your property and all those you love.
What if his wife leaves him and he decides to go out with a bang?

If liberty consists of allowing people the opportunity to destroy the planet (and we accept that not everyone is rational and accidents can happen), then the expected duration of a true libertarian society would be short.

4

I will let you (and your property) be if:

(1) you let me (and my property) be, AND

(2) the likelihood of you messing with me (or my property) in the future is low enough.

“Low enough” will be decided by the market.

Humans have brains which they use to predict future outcomes. That’s how they survive. Agents unable to distinguish between: (1) a currently peaceful agent with a LOW probability of turning aggressive, and (2) a currently peaceful agent with a HIGH probability of turning aggressive, have been long eliminated by evolution. Objective, aprioristic, property boundaries – outside of the realm of intersubjective valuations – do not exist.

5

For me a big part of it is consistency. If I decide Firearms should be illegal, the only way I can enforce this law realistically is with firearms. Prohibition of nuclear weapons on the other hand can be enforced without the use of nuclear weapons.

6

You are going to force me to give up my nuke with your pistol? Good luck with that!

7

“You are going to force me to give up my nuke with your pistol? Good luck with that!”

Lol unless you have some remote control for launching your nuke on you at all times, then it wouldn’t be that hard to do it with a knife.

8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPMGgFIqFKQ&feature=channel_video_title

9

We say that violence is forcible or unilateral reassignment of property rights. This is what makes it coercive and morally illegitimate by contrast to exchanges where property rights are mutually (peacefully, cooperatively) reassigned. But imposing risks to the property of others (including their body) is also a form of unilateral reassignment of property rights even though the property rights regard an intangible object (non-imposition of risk).

Now, I’m not going to pretend there’s a one-sentence legal theory which you can apply to differentiate risks that constitute unilateral transfer of property rights and risks that do not. I think this is an important area for the law. Driving down a public road imposes a risk on everyone else on that road but we seem to have an unspoken legal theory that everyone else on the public road has accepted the risks being imposed upon them by virtue of being on the road. Nevertheless, if I’m standing on the shoulder of a public road and you drive past me at 100mph within 1 inch of my body, this is not an acceptable imposition of risk and should be treated as a threat to the integrity of my person and property.

Owning a nuclear weapon imposes risks on everyone around. If we had law devoid of the distortions created by the State through its legal system, I doubt that any private, fully-liable citizen would be willing to pay the insurance costs of owning a nuclear weapon. It would have to be stored way out in the desert and if it ever did go off by accident, the costs to the insurer could be astronomical (wrongful death, environmental cleanup, evacuation costs associated with the radioactive fallout, etc. etc.) Not to mention that the device would be completely useless since detonating it to destroy property or kill people would necessarily be a criminal act. The existence of nukes is only made possible by the liability-distorting nature of the State order.

Clayton -

Do people "own" their websites?
10

If somebody takes aim at you with a pistol you are within your rights to twist his arm so that it is no longer aimed at you. This is true whether the pistol was pointed at you with menace or without menace (eg in jest).

In your scenario you are pointing your doom device against the whole world. That you are doing it without menace and are only interested in electricity is not really important. People, who are in danger of being killed any day now, have the right to twist your arm and deflect this danger.

Just like you would have the right to twist an arm of a demented person who does not have a clue what he is doing and is not capable of menace if he were taking aim at you with a pistol.

11

Thanks for that definition, that clarifies another point for me, which was how do you reconcile the NAP with voluntary sado-masochism.
Physical “violence” in a voluntary sexual context is outside the scope of the libertarian definition of violence.

Is that definition of violence in any of the libertarian texts ? Where does it come from ?

12

You might not be aware, Murray Rothbard, but the exact same topic has been started here. You’re welcome.

13

What an insurance company will not insure, you can’t own under the Terms and Conditions of Private Property Ownership of Land I sell you in the community in which I live.