In an anarchy, everyone can buy WMDs if they can afford it. How do we stop crazy people like Ahmadinejad to acquire weapons like atomic bombs?
wouldn’t people pay the weapons companies to not sell to him?
Is this a good enough solution?
You need demand to make them.
And if he makes it himself?
Ahmadinejad could not use state power as a platform for his views. Even if he had the money to acquire a bomb, why would he use it? To wipe out cities in the vicinity of where the ancient Israelites lived? There would be little if nothing to gain.
I am also inclined to think that even the maddest, most irrational person with the greatest wealth is all but powerless if the people in their environment are rational. Who could he hire to acquire and assemble the bomb for him, who wouldn’t be permanently tarnished and ruined by that association? Could they ever work again or go on living with the complicity and guilt? And even if he managed to recruit the thousands of people who were willing to risk their lives and reputations for the delusions of a madman, they would still face powerful retribution from everybody else. Only the head of a government could murder millions with a nuclear bomb and still retire peacefully to the countryside.
If a stateless societies had become predominant before the 20th century I think it highly unlikely that the atom bomb would have ever been developed. People would have aimed to conquer their environment and not each other. Nuclear energy would be accepted and plentiful, and the atom bomb would have remained a thought experiment for undergraduate physics students. 
Would there also be abundant, low hanging fruit, and balmy 78F all the time? I like it. Do tell more.
Z.
How does the state stop people from acquiring nukes? By using violence. There is no reason a non-state could do the same thing.
Particularly since a nuke represents a threat to a large group of people, their insurers would have insane liability.
If those individuals initiated violence, it would not be justified.
Private property owners could refuse entry for those transporting products to make it, refuse entry for those who are working on the project, ostracize, boycott etc etc. There is a myriad number of non violent measures.
Why must you initiate violence? Since when has that ever solved a problem?
“Attack the guy with a nuke..!”
You begin with trying to explain anarchy.
And then finish up with a State run Ahmadinejad trying to acquire weapons.
The question needs to make sense first.
How do people stop governments from acquiring nuclear weapons now? You answer that.
I’m making this point to separate the state from violence… that even if in some situation we needed to aggress against someone, that doesn’t justify the state.
How does the state currently stop a madman from getting a nuke?
Here’s Rothbard’s take on it.. He seems to be saying that since they cannot be used without murdering people, simply owning them is a crime for which redress is justifiable. I agree with that.
"But another answer that the libertarian is particularly equipped to give is that while the bow and arrow and even the rifle can be pinpointed, if the will be there, against actual criminals, modern nuclear weapons cannot. Here is a crucial difference in kind. Of course, the bow and arrow could be used for aggressive purposes, but it could also be pinpointed to use only against aggressors. Nuclear weapons, even “conventional” aerial bombs, cannot be. 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 of nuclear or similar weapons, or the threat thereof, is a sin and a crime against humanity for which there can be no justification.
This is why the old cliché no longer holds that it is not the arms but the will to use them that is significant in judging matters of war and peace. For it is precisely the characteristic of modern weapons that they cannot be used selectively, cannot be used in a libertarian manner. Therefore, their very existence must be condemned, and nuclear disarmament becomes a good to be pursued for its own sake. And if we will indeed use our strategic intelligence, we will see that such disarmament is not only a good, but the highest political good that we can pursue in the modem world. For just as murder is a more heinous crime against another man than larceny, so mass murder – indeed murder so widespread as to threaten human civilization and human survival itself – is the worst crime that any man could possibly commit. And that crime is now imminent. And the forestalling of massive annihilation is far more important, in truth, than the demunicipalization of garbage disposal, as worthwhile as that may be."
So does this mean we have to have a good reason to own a weapon otherwise its considered aggression?
Imagine if we are on an island, and our powers are balanced, then one man invents a gun. Are we justified in taking it away from him preemptively? No good can come of it, since the island already lived in peace…
Hi Snowflake,
You’re not addressing the point of this part:
“Here is a crucial difference in kind. Of course, the bow and arrow could be used for aggressive purposes, but it could also be pinpointed to use only against aggressors. Nuclear weapons, even “conventional” aerial bombs, cannot be. These weapons are ipso facto engines of indiscriminate mass destruction.”
Yes I grasped the difference between precise weapons and WMDs.
Its just the underlying logic suggests that in order to possess a weapon you have to justify it.
Wouldn’t this be impossible? I don’t think any single individual has the necessary knowledge to be able to build a WMD from scratch.
What’s the point of WMDs in a stateless society? Who would make WMDs in a stateless society?
i think the only argument that I could find that may inhibit what Rothbard has said is Block’s geography idea. I’ve been through debates on this issue numerous times in this forum and the only opening that leaves it contingent that i know about is what if aliens come to attack? cause if we shoot nukes into space they necessarily will not harm people on earth. obviously though governments are not holding and advocating the use of nukes to be against aliens, but against innocent people because the only way a nuke can explode on earth is the direct harm of innocents in return. actually a Justice League episode covers this. yes i’m citing a cartoon[:P]
And actually Block does end up breaking down categorically where each weapon would be considered legitimate based on geography. For instance he says that would mean machine guns could not be legitimate in certain parts of a city because upon being fired innocents in certain parts of the city would automatically be harmed. He breaks it down for each weapon and what geography they could possibly not kill innocents. so it does get a bit tangled.
Does anybody have this source? I think I got it from nirgamUK at one time.
And how would this “legitimacy” be enforced? Would aggression against dissenters be justified? If so, by whom?
Z.
Just some questions to understand where you’re coming from. Do you think that WMD’s are a good idea or “safe” if a country llke the United States has them? Or that the people in charge of the US are not crazy? That Ahmadinejad is crazier than them? That Ahmadinejad is more likely to use WMD’s than the united states?