[http:translate.google.com](http://Suntne reductiones ad absurdum semper absurdae) and no.
Interestingly enough this thread was started only days after we actually did just what the OP describes…calling out the insane notion of everyday individuals having access to nuclear bombs, like the accessibility of guns today.
Nukes are silly, but the underlying premise isn’t. The idea is that in a free society people might be able to create on their own land enough explosives to accidentally destroy their neighbors property (And potentially kill the neighbors). Would the neighbor have the right to step in to stop this person?
That’s a perfectly legitimate question, and the answer is “Yes”. Putting a persons property at a percieved risk is enough to justify intervention.
Someone can’t build a bomb-manufacturing facility next to your house without an agreement from the neighbors (if they’re at risk.), but on the flipside neighbors can’t buy property next to the facility and then demand that the facility stop or move. This isn’t a new idea.
If everyone has nukes, that would mean that no one objected to the risk their property was put into, and the fact that the questioner is objecting to this idea is evidence that our society would not make the same judgement.
Anyways, my point is just that even though the hypothetical situation is silly, libertarians should still have an answer.
damn, I thought this thread was about trying to come up with as crazy a hypothetical situation you could throw out there
Anyway,
I think it would be a good project to show these problems are worse than useless, and can’t actually be done in the context most people wish them to be done. Incidentally, this may put me at odds with some of the economists who associate with Mises.org, as a few seem apt to tbring up hypotheticals.
Either way, I think most of these questions can just get thrown in the much less shocking things such as “externality”, and the Austrians relation to them.
Cortes, is that your way of saying my Latin was wrong?