Nuclear/chemical weapons

Economics Economics Questions
41

Agreed. But I don’t want to give the impression that what I’m describing is the only model. Markets are cleverer than I am. It’s entirely possible that, using social pressure initially perhaps, the property owners will be convinced to attach covenants to their property whereby they can be evicted for certain infractions. Housing developments are likely to have more restrictive covenants, while western ranches may have none at all. So violently running the nuke guy out of town could in fact be done consistently with a free society. It depends what he bought when he bought his property.

But I still think social pressure is king. I think folks would take anarchy more seriously if they appreciated the immense power of social pressure. Shunning can drive a man to suicide.

–Len.

42

I’m skeptical of these covenants. They are far too feudal for me. Why should I be restricted by an agreement two people made a hundred years before I was born?

It’s no coincidence that trying to institutionalize this violent solution to the problem(just kick them out) mirrors an anti-libertarian system of land ownership.

I have yet to see a libertarian defense of these covenants, proponents seem to feel that their voluntary nature is self justifying. However, contracts are not promise enforcement. They are transfers of ownership and only enforceable when failure to do so would result in implicit theft. In a contract a person is not entering into a special relationship where the NAP is no longer applicable.

Suppose you and I enter into a contract where I’ll mow your lawn in exchange for five dollars. If I mow your lawn and you refuse to pay you have stolen my lawn mowing service, and are obligated to pay me for it. Like wise if I take your five dollars but do not mow your lawn I have stolen the 5 dollars.

But suppose that you and I enter into an agreement that you will mow my lawn or I will beat you up. This is a promise, but it is not a contract. Some might say that I am entitled to beat you up, because you agreed to it. But they miss the point that you while you might have been consenting to the beating when the contract was made, you have since withdrawn the consent. A person can not transfer their freedom of will.

This covenant amounts to nothing more than someone promising that they will not own nukes or we can beat them up.

43

Fair question: I’m not trying to reinvent the “social contract” here!

Here’s a scenario that illustrates the sort of thing that’s possible: suppose I buy up all the property in Las Vegas, and never sell it, but instead pass it to my kids. I do rent out property; in fact the city of Las Vegas hums along quite happily even though everyone in the place pays me rent. My children and grandchildren would inherit the property in turn, and as landlords would be able to evict anyone they wanted. Since I retained full ownership, “covenants” aren’t involved at all. You would describe that as “feudal,” and you’d be right: it certainly looks like a feudal fiefdom. I think you’d agree, perhaps reluctantly, that there’s nothing illegal or anti-freedom about this scenario.

Instead of renting, I could have sold the property in parcels–but retained various rights-of-way or easements. For example, mineral rights (though there are some debatable questions about mineral rights). Or the right to fly around in my noisy helicopter at low altitudes–i.e., a “noise” easement and a “wind” easement. Or hunting rights. And so on. Rothbard discusses this at some length, because it solves the problem of the smoky factory: if you homestead a property first, you can block a factory’s pollution–but if the factory homesteads first, it gets its own property plus a “soot easement” over a larger area. This notion of easements and rights-of-way is critical to my earlier post.

Bearing that in mind, I can create some unusual easements. For example, I could construct a free-market version of “eminent domain” by selling properties but retaining an option to purchase at a specified strike price. Down the road I could take the property back whenever I wanted by exercising the option. The buyer of the property would presumably pay less for it than for a property that wasn’t encumbered with an option to buy. When he sold it in turn, he would not be able to invalidate my option to buy, so the next buyer would also discount the property accordingly.

One application of that concept could be a church getting together and buying up an entire town, then selling the parcels to its members while retaining an option to buy. The church elders could then evict anyone who violdated church rules by exercising their option and buying him out.

You’ve got your finger on the nub. Rothbard argues convincingly that promises are unenforceable. Only property rights are enforceable. So the promise you describe would be meaningless. But the “covenants” I alluded to–and I might be using the wrong legal term–would represent property rights vested in the HOA, such as an option to purchase. One consequence of my argument is that no enforceable contract will actually say, “or we can beat them up.” It will say, in effect, “or we can evict them.” The “beating up” kicks in when someone tries to resist eviction.

–Len.

44

If you are incapable of discriminating between WMD and other “property” you are not a philosopher, Austrian or otherwise, and not even capable of thought.

Of course, to be correct there are a number of definitions of ownership, many of which do not include possession or control, so there may be circumstances–and possibly have been–when a corporation or even individual could “own” such material, but do so in a completely innocuous way.

45

Strong words! I’ll be interested to hear your characterization of “WMD” that makes them not “property.” When you post it, I’ll test your definition alongside things like a TNT factory’s warehouse full of explosives, and a nuclear power plant, and an arsenal housing a million or so rounds of ammunition, and a fuel storage facility with a few million pounds of flammables, and a chemical plant with enough toxic chemicals on hand to kill the population of Nevada, and…

–Len.

46

Perhaps a definition of “property” is in order? This wouldn’t be the first person I’ve encountered who (for some reason) believes that it is impossible to own something that is traditionally produced by the government.

Incoming arbitrary titles of ownership…

47

I apologize for my poor choice of words. In economics, philosophy and law it is critical to know exactly which of many possible meanings of a word or statement is the one intended. To know what we are talking about here we have to not only define “property”, but “ownership”, in the particular context being used. Blanket, doctrinair and presumptuous definitions inevitably lead to error.

In the present instance this means recognizing that the expression “weapons of mass destruction” has a different meaning from an arsenal, fuel depot or toxic chemical plant. The difference is that WMD is something specifically and purpose-designed and built to cause mass destruction, whereas the other things you mention may be potentially capable of this–depending again on your definition of “mass destruction”–intervening steps are necessary to convert them to this use and to so employ them. This is why such potentially extremely destructive things do not belong in exactly the same class–and may not sensibly require the same pre-emptive controls on their use or ownership–as easily deployable, purpose-built nuclear, gas or biological weapons systems.

Always guard against comparing “apples and oranges”

John

48

I find this whole thread a striking example of what is wrong with extreme libertarianism. The truth is that the government can do some good: in this case, the prohibition of the ownership of nuclear weapons will most likely save millions of lives. And yet it is completely inconsistent to forbid ownership in a society where property rights are fully protected. So what do you do know? Natural rights Libertarians will work up some scheme by which they imagine that owning nuclear weapons might be illegal (roads, etc.); obviously even if this were to happen, it would be far too late to prevent catastrophe. Instead of the government confiscating the weapons, the NR Libertarians say, then a PDA or whatever would confiscate them. But that is beside the point. That person’s right to property has been violated in either case. Property rights can only take you so far. There are certainly cases where they are in conflicting interests with a Utilitarian viewpoint, and this is one of them. I don’t understand how you people can support ownership of nuclear weapons, which would porobably cost millions of lives, just so that you can hold on to your petty belief that people have an absolute, God-given ‘right’ to own property.

49

Sort of the way “guns are specifically and purpose-designed for killing people”? That’s begging the question. I can research anthrax for all sorts of purposes, and might even have a good reason to aerosolize it. I say I’m doing legitimate scientific enquiry; you say it’s a weapon of mass destruction. Conversely, no WMD in history was ever built for the stated purpose of mass murder. The builder always gives some other reason, like deterrance, defense, power generation, etc. Right now Iran is pursuing nuclear power (which they’re specifically allowed to do by the non-proliferation treaty), while the US is claiming it’s a weapons program that must be stopped forcibly (and thus the US is violating the treaty).

So in short, it’s entirely up to your subjective opinion whether my “fuel reserve” is really the makings of a massive fuel-oil explosive, or whether my epidemiological research is really a biological weapons plant, or whether my nuclear plant is a “breeder reactor for making weapons,” etc. For that matter, I could build an honest-to-goodness nuclear warhead without it being a “weapon of mass destruction”; perhaps I’m selling national defense against hostile non-libertarian nations. Defense is perfectly legal.

–Len.

50

You mean you trust the government with nukes? I don’t. The US has already killed hundreds of thousands of people with nuclear weapons. Kennedy nearly ushered in the end of civilization in a game of chicken with Russians and Cubans. If nuclear war ever happens, it will almost certainly be government that waged it.

I have a real problem with nuclear weapons–which is exactly why I think government shouldn’t be allowed to have them.

If you were paying attention, on the other hand, I think elimination of government is part of a sound strategy for eliminating nuclear threats. To suggest that libertarians want a nuke in every basement is a gross straw man.

–Len.

51

I think that this problem has more to do with the problems of Nationalism. One would argue (not that I am one of those) that the A-bomb saved thousands of American lives by defeating the Japanese.

Free ownership of nuclear weapons is the only logically consistent stance to hold if you are a natural rights libertarian. Period. According to your people, property rights are nearly godlike and don’t require any special properties to take effect. Nuclear weapons apply through your own logic. This is a sidestep of the whole point. Perhaps I agree with you that the government shouldn’t be allowed to own them, but this only becomes relevant when nationalism is dissolved. If other countries have nukes and we don’t, that is a serious threat to security. Personally, I believe that the nuclear ‘stalemate’ has brought more peace than destruction.

Nuclear weapons do not need a government to exist. To suggest so is absurd. At least with a government only one person owns the nukes, and isresponsible to the people via the democratic process. In a Libertarian society, several people would likely own nukes, who were responsible to no one, and the chance of a holocaust is dramatically greater.

This is my chain of logic:

  1. NR libertarians hold that property rights ought to be upheld at all costs.

  2. Therefore, NR libertarians must uphold a person’s right to own a nuclear weapon (if one were to deny this, they would deny their own logic).

  3. This would allow several different people to own nuclear weapons. These people would be accountable to nobody. This is compared to a government, one single body, which is accountable to the people via democracy.

  4. There is a much greater chance of a holocaust with several unaccountable people rather than one accountable group of people.

  5. Therefore, NR libertarians necessarily support a position, the ownership of nuclear weapons, in which it is more likely for a nuclear holocaust to occur. NR libertarians support a position which is worse for the general popoulation.

52

As someone else already pointed out earlier in the thread, making something illegal does not stop individuals from getting their hands on it.

So yeah, nuclear weapons do need a government to exist, because governments are the only ones who care to own them.

53

That’s eating your cake and having it too. They’re too awful not to be controlled by government, but when government uses them on people, they’re a godsend. In any case, that claim is so thoroughly debunked by now as not to merit comment.

Hey, thanks for telling me what I think! Let’s go further: anyone who doesn’t smoke weed is no libertarian. [*-)]

But you’re mistaken. A natural rights libertarian should oppose initiation of aggression, including against someone who wants to own a nuke. That’s true, but it’s a far cry from “free ownership of nuclear weapons.” I also would not aggress against drug users, but I still think they’re stupid and will take (non-aggressive) steps to exclude them from my vicinity. As a bible believer, I also have a problem with prostitution, pornography and gay sex–but as a libertarian, I confine myself to expressing my views without initiation of aggression.

In short, there’s nothing inconsistent about a plumb-line libertarian asking, “How can we keep those darn prostitutes/porn-shops/nukes out of our town?” The thing that makes us libertarian is that we eschew initiation of force to accomplish the goal. Instead we would use persuasion, contractual arrangements and social sanctions like shunning and boycotts.

You’ve misunderstood something: I never said that eliminating government in and of itself eliminates nukes. I think saying “part of a sound strategy” makes that clear.

But the first benefit of eliminating government is indeed that non-governments would have a devil of a time building nuclear arsenals, so what you dismiass as “absurd” has an element of truth. A Trident nuclear missile, for example, has a unit cost of $31 million. They’re launched from nuclear missile subs that themselves cost well over a billion dollars each. That’s small potatoes when you have 300,000,000 slaves you can force to pay for your weapons, but it’s real money to, say, Warren Buffett. All together, the US nuclear program cost $5.8 trillion. If Warren Buffett and Bill Gates pooled every penny they have, they could hypothetically build an arsenal roughly 1% as large as that of the United States.

Remember of course that it was government that invented the things in the first place. It was also military research that has given us the pain ray, etc. Civilian research needs to turn a profit, and mass murder isn’t very profitable when you don’t have government customers with trillion-dollar budgets. That wouldn’t prevent new discoveries from turning to bad uses, but it would mean that research would focus on usefulness to customers, not on maximizing destructive potential.

That’s only an observation, though. Remember I said part of a sound plan. If you know much about the production of nuclear weapons, you’ll also know that it’s an expensive, complicated process. Each and every step of the process is vulnerable to commercial and social pressures. For example, a power generation plant that adds plutonium production as a sideline would be subject to boycott, loss of security and insurance coverage, bad press, and shunning of its owners and employees–or on the other hand to buyouts. Similarly, uranium mines that sell indiscriminantly to angry muslims with shifty eyes would be subject to sanctions, buyout or other pressures. Enrichment technology, likewise. Plutonium retailers, likewise. Machine shops capable of the precision necessary for an implosion-type fission device, ditto. Makers of triggers and conventional explosives for bomb construction, likewise. Providers of testing grounds, the same.

Putting together a nuclear industry is a massive undertaking that requires either: broad acceptance by masses of people who must cooperate to get it done; or vast power to impose your will on others, and vast resources to pay the associated costs.

–Len.

54

That is true, but it makes it considerably harder. Nobody would argue that it would be harder to get, say, marijuana, if it were legal.

What? How about Al-Qaeda? I’m sure they would love to get their hands on a couple of nukes. There are plenty of psychos out there who would love nothing more to dominate the world through aggression or the threat thereof, something made considerably easier with nuclear weapons. And even if you believe that nobody wants a nuclear weapon other than a government, are you willing to stake the lives of millions on that misguided belief?

55

The choice is between two alternatives; one in which many people could possibly own nukes, accountable to nobody but themselves, and between another in which only a certain group of people, a government, can own a nuke, which is directly accountable to the people through the democratic process. Pointing out ‘examples’ of government screwing up is not an effective defense, nor is it at all part of the Austrian methodology. The question is which scenario is better. Neither is perfect. But one accountable government is certainly less perncious than hundreds of psychos walking around with nukes.

And while you’re busy persuading, using contracts, shunning, and boycotting the man with the nuke, he’ll blow you up. This is simply common sense. The problem with the NR Libertarian POV is that the criticism of the initiation of force deprives anybody of the prevention of the initiation of force. The error here is valuing all initiations of force equally. Is the initiation of force by the government in confiscated one nuke just as pernicious as the initiation of force by the individual with the nuke when he kills millioins? It is obviously not. Your goal should not be the outlawing of all of the initiations of force, because doing so will inevitably result in more aggression then there would have been in the first place. By allowing someone to own a nuke and not aggressing against him, you are tacitly allowing him to committ a much more virulent act of aggression, i.e., the murder of millions.

Yes, from 1940-1996. But that includes a whole lot of expenses (research and development, defense against nukes, dismantling, environmental considerations, etc.) One only needs to either build one or to buy one (the cost of building all the nukes that we had from 1940-1996 was a little over $400 billion). The truth is that it is possible for people to get bombs if they have enough money. Considering that we currently have 7,000 nukes, and that it costed $400 billion to build them, it means that a nuke costs about $57 million to build on average. There are ceratinly organizations and individuals who can afford this.

56

The creation of a nuke does not need a whole industry, it only needs one factory, which could be operating under the guise of something else. Anyway, it doesn’t matter because the actual state of affairs is not really what I’m arguing about. What I’m saying is that NR Libertarians argue that what is best for the people is the enforcement of natural rights and the complete outlawing of aggression, whether by government or otherwise. They claim that this is valid for every circumstance. Obviously, the day could arise (I would argue that it has already arisen but it doesn’t really matter) where it is feasible for a person to obtain a nuke without some government stopping it. At this point your model breaks down. A complete enforcement of NR leads to the death of millions. The logic is therefore inconsistent.

Conceded, but that’s beside the point. Nukes do exist now, whether or not the government has created them is irrespective to the actual issue.

57

“Petty belief”? You are exactly what is wrong with the world today. You, and people like you, with their anti-philosophical bias. To be honest though, I’d prefer having private ownership of nukes over a government having any control over them whatsoever. Moreover, I’d prefer this possibility to government existing at all. So sorry if any of you mini-statists think this is a trump card. It isn’t. As for the nonsense called democracy, how many more times does it need to be refuted? Bryan Caplan has done so. Friedman has done so. Hoppe has done so. It is a sheer collectivist claptrap. But why not be consistent, and demand democracy in every aspect of the economy, since it’s so “accountable” to the people?

58

After you have worked for another twenty years, and made your fortune, we will see if you would not like then to apply your own subjective opinion–whether it conforms to Austrian economic theory and Libertarianism or not-- against anyone who poses a threat, or even a potential threat, of destroying your whole world with weapons against which there is no defense.

59

Your fear mongering is irrelevant and irrational jbar. More people were killed with machetes in the 20th century than were killed with nuclear weapons.

The power to kill in mass is not granted by weapons.

60

Quoted for emphasis.