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 -