I am fully aware that they would not find the nukes before they reach their destination, but once it is found out the nuke were moved in breach of contract the nukes could be sent back to where they came from. On many roads it would be legal to have nukes, but there would most likely be many roads that the nukes had travelled on and some of them would have that be illegal.
Ok, I think my original question was too vague. My question is, is owning a nuclear/chemical weapon a “right”, part of the right to bear arms? Or think of it as, does the right to bear arms mean the right to own nuclear/chemical weapons, tanks, fighter jets, missiles/rockets, etc., etc. Is this an inherent/natural right of human beings?
Yes, property rights apply to all objects, even nuclear weapons. But I think the market will find ways to keep out these weapons.
I would say that the right not to be prohibited from action that is not harmful to others includes the ownership of such things. The tricky part is in extending that right to how they are used and their proximity to other persons and property.
Well obviously, they could only be used legally in self-defense. As to proximity that depends on if you are talking about proximity to the “weapon” or proximity to the destruction of the weapon. In the former, it is irrelevant. In the latter, it should be illegal to kill innocent victims.
Not actually. A threat is a threat. Coercion is using the threat of violence to influence action.
I see too many objectional statements to reply to each one so ill just make an accumulative post.
Any use of the word “allow” invalidates the argument because it begs the question, who is allowed to decide what should be allowed?
What legitimate purpose would a private defense company have for owning weapons of indiscriminate murder? Surely these weapons are never libertarian.
Several people have proposed a contractual solutions to this “problem”, yet the essence of libertarianism is the NAP. You may believe that some uses of property are less appropriate than others but I do not find that to be a libertarian sentiment. Any influence exerted would have to be social; a boycott, instead of an invasion. An attempt to confiscate WMDs, no matter on what pseudo-voluntary grounds, would be anti-libertarian.
The premise of the question itself is questionable. It presumes that WMDs are not available because the State forbids it, and in the absence of State coercion people would begin owning WMDs. But that assumption is contrary to experience. We know that the consequence of prohibition is not the unavailability of a good, but rather increased cost and reduced quality.
There is some international demand for acquisition of nuclear weapons despite the effective ban. But this demand is almost universally defensive in nature, though in many cases in order to defend states completely illegitimate in origin. Israel, Pakistan, and India were created arbitrarily out of former colonies. And Israel, though an aggressive State, has yet to use its nuke.
People do not own WMDs because people are social while States are anti-social.
Very interesting point.
There are only property rights. A county or city is a property that someone can be expelled from for not following the rules.
From my understanding of Misean philosophy, a person should have the ability to secede from all governments, down to the individual level.
You’re presupposing that this person has signed some kind of homeowners’ covenant, but that’s just a special scenario. What about people who haven’t?
No. County or city property should only be owned by individuals. Not allowing individuals to own the property is simply violating their rights. An individual should only be punished if s/he has violated the rights of another individual.
People who don’t live in such a covenant presumably own estates large enough that their neighbors are at a distance that makes nuclear weapons unthreatening.
False. What you are describing is the state in miniature.
Me owning a piece of property does not entitle me to some vague form of ownership over any near by individual.
It appears that your conclusion preceded your justification.
You believe that since people should be able to tell their neighbors what to do then people will voluntarily enter into arguments where one person can force the other to act contrary to his will. Or more specifically, where the many will dictate to the few.
It seems to me that you have missed the point of the libertarianism, the market, everything. Violence is never an appropriate reaction to nonviolence. A person being violently forced off his land is not voluntary association. It does not matter if it occurs within a frame work of volunteerism, the act is illegitimate. Just because people enter an agreement does not mean it is enforceable under libertarian law, and the types of “covenants” that you are endorsing don’t seem to qualify as enforceable.
A state is a monopoly on justice that allows someone to unilaterally declare the price to be paid for protection. That has nothing to do with estates, which are properties that one lives in and have their own rules. Now unless you are super-rich and own an estate big enough to make the rules yourself, you will need to join a community and agree to their rules. Therefore if you break the rules, such as a rule against possessing weapons of mass destruction, then you are the violator of their rights and force may be legitimately used against you.
As Hoppe has made clear liberty does not grant you the ability to do anything you want cost-free.
Explain why agreeing to a community’s rules would be necessary.
You people are aware that homeowners associations, gated communities etc. already have their own rules, right? And that these do not need the State to be enforced, correct? For instance, in South Africa many gated communities, corporate compounds and the like are protected by private firms - to the extent that the locals trust them more than the government. And these communities certainly have their own rules, albeit none too restrictive.
Most people living today haven’t signed up for a homeowner’s association. Why do you assume everybody has? I currently own a house with no homeowner’s association, and it’s only on a half acre.
I can’t speak for Stranger’s intent, but he’s on the right track. What stops your neighbor from getting a nuke is that his homeowner’s insurance and defense agency will both drop him if he tries. In addition, the DA will announce it publicly to disclaim any liability. Your DA will in turn at least notify you, as will those of your neighbor’s other neighbors. You’ll give the neighbor a piece of your mind, and stop inviting him to barbecues. More importantly, either through action on your part or automatically, through reciprocal contracts, the road and utility companies will cut him off as well.
The net result is that your neighbor will be defenseless against crime, fire or casualty, uninsured against losses of any kind, and denied transport to/from his property as well as utlities.
Which brings us back to Stranger’s quote. If the neighbor doesn’t need insurance, can defend his own property against any crime, and can get power and transportation without using anyone else’s services (for example, by owning his own hydro plant and airport), he’s apparently big enough to operate a nuclear testing ground safely on his own property.
It’s a bit misleading to sum all that up as “HOA membership,” but the idea is there. In a free market, replacements must evolve for all socialised services, especially police, roads and utilities. Basic economic considerations suggest that infrastructure providers, insurers and defense providers will enter into contracts for mutual benefit that will include efficient notifications, denial of service to “criminals and outlaws” (suitably defined for libertarian society), etc. Homeowners will also want basic guarantees, for example so they can’t be arbitrarily denied road access. The end result is analogous to today’s HOAs.
–Len.
It is not necessary. You can live in your own estate far away from civilization. The costs to do so, however, are extreme.
If you’re shrewd enough, you may be in a position where you become a landlord and you get to make the rules of a community. However you still have to pay the full cost of having weapons of mass destruction, such as the fact that not many people will want to live in your community.
That is because you live in a government-owned estate.
What you describing is social influence. It is completely dissimilar to running someone off their property on the grouds of a broken promise, because it relies on market incentives rather than violent disincentives.