As a Liberatarian based in the United Kingdom I do not have the US gun owning culture as part of my heritage and I have some concerns about the philosophical justification for gun ownership.
I understand that in owning a gun I do not violate the non aggression principle.
But, what if I wanted to go beyond a hand gun and get myself a nuclear bomb. Just by owning the bomb I am not violating the non aggression principle either.
I am not comfortable with people being able to own nuclear bombs, I would consider the mere fact of owning a nucleur bomb to constitute an act of threatened violence towards me and my property.
But If towning a bomb is an act of threatened violence then why isn’t owning a gun also an act of threatened violence ?
On what basis can I justify gun ownership (Which I am not against) but deny nucleur bomb ownership (which I am against)
I don’t think anyone could get a way with saying that a nuclear bomb is for self defense or recreational purposes. Such an object is for sheer destruction.
I would also be interested in how such objects could be outlawed within a private law society prior to it being used. This would be on par with a pre-crime or thought crime. What purpose would anyone have for owning an object of sheer destruction other than sheer destruction. But would that be enough to prevent use or prevent ownership all together.
If people within a region found out that X individual had a nuke then its mere existence in their vicinity would be a threat to their property and they might be able to take that to arbitration. But i am not quite sure on how successful that could be.
I agree, but where do you draw the line, is a surface to air missile an object of sheer destruction or a gatling gun, a hand grenade ?
Who decides when a weapon crosses the line from self defence to sheer destruction ?
I’m not comfortable with the existence of nuclear bombs either, but what can you do… The government built them. The knowledge for how to build one isn’t just going to be forgotten. Fortunately a nuclear weapon is so terribly wasteful that only governments have the money and inclination to maintain them.
As a property owner, you can prohibit weapons - or anything else - from being brought onto your property, if you so desire. A private community could make it part of their terms of occupancy/residence.
Actually, obtusely destructive military weapons, like flamethrowers or artillery, are so impractical for individuals or small groups to wield against less destructive, but more effective defensive weapons like ordinary small-arms, that state governments often don’t bother regulating them in the civilian population the same way they would an ordinary automatic hand gun.
For example, I can buy a .50 anti-material rifle with a range of something ridiculous more easily than I can buy a .22 revolver in this country, and I can build a flamethrower in my garage without any hassles from the govt, if I so desired.
I guess they think I’d be using the rifle for hunting? What do you hunt with that, exactly? Dinosaurs?
It’s not like regulation actually does much in any case.
How about insurance agenices deciding? A gun doesn’t represent much of a threat except at who you aim it. A nuk or even a cruise missile could do some serious property damage, my guess is foregoing ownership of either would net you an insurance advantage as a lesser risk to other people, similar to how a four door sedan is generally cheaper to insure than a two door sports car.
The cost of maintaining such a device would negate it’s probable purchase. In a full out AC system there would be no more nuclear weaponry that would be capable of acheiving fission. These devices are not just stationary object’s that you can move around and use at whim. The timing devices have to be constantly maintained and re-synced on a regular basis. The computer systems that do this require periodic observation and power. Only with a monopoly on cheap power can one obtain and make use of such a device, bearing in mind they had the knowledge of the system they are trying maintain and use.
I find this topic amusing, because anyone with basic knowledge of Chemistry can build a device that would be able to destroy just about anything you wish. The technical hurdles behind building a nuclear device are numerous.
I believe it’s simply that this ancient English heritage, inherited by the United States, has been conveniently ignored in modern times as the rationale for absolute gun control in the U.K. is completely opaque to us today: the government was terrified of the people it had dragged into one endless war after another as well as fear of the rebelling Irish.
“The Firearms Act of 1920 was partly spurred by fears of a possible surge in crime from the large number of guns available following World War I and in part due to fears of working class unrest in this period[…]Shootings of police by militant groups in Ireland may also have been a factor…”
“The rights of English subjects, and, after 1707, British subjects, to possess arms was recognised under English Common Law.”
“The right to keep and bear arms had originated in England during the reign of Henry II with the 1181 Assize of Arms, and developed as part of Common Law.”
Ownership can NEVER be an act of aggression. The mere ownership of a nuclear bomb does not aggress you in anyway.
The argument is based upon maybe, not did. You see this with dui laws. They assume that since you may hurt someone while driving drunk that you committed an act of aggression. This is of course ridiculous. Potential to aggress another is irrelevant, the aggression has to take place to be relevant.
I am not comfortable with people being able to own nuclear bombs, I would consider the mere fact of owning a nucleur bomb to constitute an act of threatened violence towards me and my property.
I don’t find it much better that governments own them, yet you feel pretty safe that no one would use it. The fact is, someone criminal enough to be willing to use such a weapon would 1: never gain access to it and 2: have been subdued long before he got to such a destructive weapon.
If one, in the unlikely, owned a nuclear bomb, it has to be understood from case to case. If, for instance, it’s an old rarity from a war, like collectible or something similar, you can have it. Otherwise… big NO. As earlier posts say, a nuclear bomb cannot be used in self defense, it’s a threat against the ambient.
“The basic libertarian principle is that everyone should have the right to do whatever he is doing unless he is committing an overt act of aggression OR A THREAT against someone else.”
I define “threat” as potential damage to another’s property with a probability of occurring that passes a “reasonable man” test.
(Specifically I exclude any absolute requirements for intentional malice or immediacy in my definition of threat)
The higher the potential damage, the lower the probability required to constitute a threat to a reasonable man.
I think the potential damage of a nuclear bomb is sufficiently high, that even a small probability of use constitutes a threat.
(Unless of course the circumstances are set up so it is a tiny nuclear device, buried in a 5 mile thick lead box, 500 miles below the earth’s surface, etc, etc)
You have some odd hang up on potential. There is zero aggression from another for their mere ownership of a weapon, be it a sharp pencil, or 10,000 nukes. The hang up is even more odd when you consider threat from using this bomb would almost always include their life being in danger. With a gun, they can point it at you and direct its blast towards you. They cannot contain a nuke to a specific location such as with a gun or a knife. The idea of mutually assured destruction is a big one within any ideology that relies heavily on the rationality of the people following it. I think you take too many liberties when you include all of these what-ifs with yoru argument.
You need to define aggression.
If someone owns a knife, is it aggression, if so why ?
If someone holds a knife in your presence, is it aggression, if so why?
If someone points a knife at you is it agression, if so why?
If someone moves a knife in your direction from 6 feet is it aggression, if so why ?
If someone moves a knife in your direction from 1 inch away is it aggression, if so why ?
If someone pushes the knife into your body, is it aggression, if so why ?
My point is that aggression is not easily defined, at what point does ownership of a dangerous thing become aggression towards another ?
I don’t think it can be a question of intent.
If it is reliant of intent then a young child that playfully points a gun at you is not committing aggression and you have no right to take the gun from them, although your property and life are in danger with a high probability. (My definition of threat)
I don’t think it can be a question of clear and present danger.
If you need clear and present danger then if a known assassin tells you today that on the third of June he will shoot you with a long range snipers rifle, you have no right to defend yourself until the third of June at which point you will be unable to do so.
Or consider if your neighbour has a nuke on his house with a timer set to detonate in 273 days, how long do you have to wait before the danger becomes clear and present enough defend yourself.
I think introducing the concept of threat solves a lot of tricky problems without weakening anything that we would actually want to keep. An act is aggressive when it constitutes a threat to your property and the probability of that damage is high enough for a reasonable man to consider it a threat.
You can disarm the dangerous child, detain the assassin and defuse your neighbours nuke, all of these things constitute a genuine threat.
You lose the absolute right to own a nuke, but outside the safety of the Mises forum does anyone REALLY want a world where you live next door to someone with a nuke? He might accidentally set it off, or what if his wife leaves him and he decides to go out with a bang!
When I say aggression I mean an initial act of aggression. An act that is not self-defense. There are obvious ones and there are more subtle ones. If a friend says “I’m going to kill you,” I can know if they are serious or not. If some person I do not know says it, then I will take their word for it, or observe the situation if they are serious. Any person that feels it is smart to imply a threat to someone they do not know now, or on a set date for it has initiated an act of aggression against me and I can defend myself,. So again, it is a question of the rationality of humans in this ideology.
If he sets it off accidentally, the community will not matter as they will all be gone.
There’s no need to appeal to the NAP regarding nuke ownership. Holding nukes would make you essentially uninsurable, and accordingly, unable to participate in society.
So in a free society, maybe owning a handgun would lower your insurance premium if you lived in a bad neighborhood (it might offset risks of break-ins and robberies), but owning automatic rifles and bombs is going to cost you, a lot. Libertarian philosophy won’t determine these things, insurance actuaries will.
I never said anything about being forced to obtain insurance, only that not having it would render you marginalized from civil society. Do you think private road owners are going to let anyone drive on their road? Do you think banks are going to lend mortgages to anyone who can afford it? Do you think employers are going to hire anyone who qualifies?
Right now, since governments keep track of criminals and since the cost of police is externalized, the liability of licensing, lending to, or hiring violent people is put mostly on the state. And the state really never has to accept liability, so its just spread around onto taxpayers.
In a free society, firms would likely want some sort of assurance that they aren’t dealing with dangerous people. Various insurance agencies would likely fill this desire by vetting individuals and agreeing to pay for any damages they cause.
Background checks which were once run through government databases gathered by government departments would be privately operated and necessarily voluntary. Don’t want to volunteer your information? Fine, but don’t expect to get that new job.
