Right of individuals to develop their own nuclear weapons

Economics Political Theory
, ,
1

What is Ron Paul’s, and other libertarians’, take on this? I am a libertarian, but in order to be consistent, I want an answer to this question.

They keep saying (and want to agree) that either you believe in freedom and property rights or you don’t. There is no middle ground.

Thus, what is wrong with allowing a man to make his own nuclear weapons in his own garage? What if Bill Gates would suddenly develop a passion for making nuclear weapons on his own property? He just wants to make them, but doesn’t intend to use them. Just like a stamp collector who collects stamps for the sake of collecting them.

So, libertarians are, by definition, not against such nuclear weapons development by individuals, right? And if not, why not, and what are the implications? How would the free market handle this, and prevent the eventual use of these weapons?

2

We had a decent sized thread not too long ago about this:

https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/nuclear-disarmament/11971

There was disagreement. Though also some issues in communication and understanding of each other’s position, methinks.

3

Imagine if your neighbour was assembling a massive armed force of men and machines on his property and didn’t like to be questioned about it (by his neighbours, not police). How would you react to it? That would probably guide the outcome of what happens to the neighbour and his private militia. I suppose one could otherwise indulge in a neighbourhood arms race contest, though!

I imagine the core question here should be: is a nuclear weapon appropriate for the self-defense of a small flat or townhouse, or would its destructive power pose a grave risk to others in the event of malicious or accidental denotation of the weapon, enough to have them run the nuclear-weapon holder out of town?

In all seriousness though I doubt this is a burning issue for libertarianism as the only people capable of affording and maintaining such weapons would be of the Bill Gates variety, and then there’s the question of why one needs nuclear weapons (or a small army) for personal self-defense anyway…

4

There is no such right. Now that we know the conclusion, someone make a libertarian argument for it. Go!

5

Why stop there? I want the right to maintain my own flotilla of battleships, too! Imagine a world where everyone, instead of collecting boring stamps, stockpile vast quantities of nuclear weapons in warehouses, bunkers and caves and drive into town Kim Jong-Il style behind a massive motorcade of armoured vehicles, tanks and motorcycles with cool sidecars, plus the million man force hired from the local Wal-Mart.

Seriously, given the nature of a nuclear weapon and its destructive potency I doubt any realistic argument can be made to legitimise it as an inalienable right: ask yourself, would you trust your neighbour with a nuclear weapon? What if Fido the dog accidentally set it off when frolicking in the garage?

6

There are arguments stating that since a nuclear weapon poses a clear and present danger you would be justified in aggressing against the person’s property in order to get rid of it. I don’t buy that argument, but that’s the only half decent argument I’ve seen.

7

No, but you can ostracize him to death, give him dirty looks, and not patronize his wife’s coffee shop. Plenty of ways to show him that the nuclear bombs in his garage are a no-no.

Then you can seek tort damages (from him, not Fido) at a (mutually agreed to) arbitrator. I think.

EDIT: /sarcasm

8

If Bill Gates does that insurance rates are going to skyrocket in Washington state.

9

Not if you’re dead.

10

Yeah, that could be a problem.

/sarcasm

Edited previous post to make sarcasm more obvious. Apologies.

11

The general consensus among libertarian thinkers is that WMDs cannot be owned by anyone. This is because a WMD not only damages/kills one person or one group of people, but all the innocents around them as well. Thus, a WMD is by nature an aggressive weapon so it would not be allowed in an ancap society.

12

If someone shows their intent of aggression towards you by either holding a gun to your head or building a nuclear weapon near by, then you have every right to retaliate towards the aggressor.

13

So if someone builds a bomb inside their house with the intention of using it for self defense, but it would automatically bomb my house upon use, could he have it?

14

A nuclear weapon can’t be used for self-defence by a private citizen that makes it a big no no in my book.

If my neighbour was building nuclear weapons in his basement I would view that as clear and present threat on my life and stop him.

Some organisations could be allowed to have nuclear weapons, for instance those whose business model is the defence against foreing states. But in general I would say you act in self-defence when you stop people from building these things. There is really very little reason to do so unless you plan a mass-murder so that would justify a pre-emtive attack.

People who want nuclear weapons have to make there intentions clear and gain the trust of the community.

15

I doubt this is a burning issue for libertarianism as the only people capable of affording and maintaining such weapons would be of the Bill Gates variety,

First of all, so? Is your theory that dangerous psycopaths cannot become wealthy?

Second of all, once you got rid of the government, there would be an awful lot of nukes floating around. If the existing weapons made it to the “free market,” in the U.S., I would imagine there would be excess supply and some bargain basement prices. The U.S. officially has 5,113 warheads.

Third, supposedly from 1945 to 1990, the U.S. built a total of around 70,000 warheads, while spending at most 2.8 trillion to do so (not couting delivery systems). So that works out to maybe an average of $41 million a nuke? (1996 $), and that’s including monsters like the 9 megaton yield B-53 on the high end; I’d imagine the little ones could be made more cheaply.

So even if they sold at cost, Bill Gates could probably afford about 900 nukes, and still have about $2 billion to pay his hypothetical henchmen.

Why doesn’t anyone believe me that getting rid of the government just means the rich becoming the new government?

and then there’s the question of why one needs nuclear weapons (or a small army) for personal self-defense anyway…

People would primarily want them for purposes of extortion and intimidation, of course. Also possibly for land-grabbing.

Maybe oil companies could hire “private security forces” to pretend to be wacko terrorists and nuke places that have oil deposits, then they could move in and pump without having to purchase the rights form anyone. For example.

16

Why doesn’t anyone believe me that getting rid of the government just means the rich becoming the new government?

If you actually get rid of government and don’t just hand it over to the nomenclatura (like Russia) it wouldn’t be a problem. Building these institutions from the ground takes massive resources and why would people like Bill Gates want to? He is probably pretty content with his life and doing software development for free. I doubt he want to risk everything to become a tyrant living in isoloation and fear of assasinations and back-stabbing the rest of his life.

This is just not how tyrants are made.

If people start fighting over the power-vaccume we have problem and an enviroments that breeds plenty of tyrants, this would happen if we wake up tomorrow and government is gone. But that is not going to happen and a failing government does not equal anarchy either. The general population in the area actually have to resist authority or there will never be anarchy.

17

“I doubt he want to risk everything to become a tyrant living in isoloation and fear of assasinations and back-stabbing the rest of his life.”

Well, sure, Bill Gates doesn’t strike me as the tyrant type either. Still, some people congenitally crave power - supposedly as much as 1% of the population might have full-blown psychopathic tendencies, from the psychology I’ve read at least. Important not to overestimate them, but important not to ignore their existence either.

Honestly, that’s my main problem with anarcho-libertarian thought; much of it seems to ignore that power-hungry and ill-intentioned people exist, and that they get organized if not actively prevented from doing so. If “good people” (people with consciences) are not actively organized and actively opposing aggressive coercion, the people who have no problem with coercion will run everything.

The question then becomes, how does a group that polices against coercion not become taken over by the power hungry, who would probably gravitate towards it?

Transparency and accountability are probably good answers, but then by what mechanisms would those be achieved?

It’s a cop-out to just speculate that they’d happen on their own, spontaneously; it would actually take a lot of thought, effort, organization. “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance” and all that.

18

People aren’t born sociopaths. They become tyrants and criminals because they are unable to deal with circumstances in other ways.

When civil-society breaks down what are you going to do? There is really no other option for survival then to establish yourself as the local warlord or join one. Most of these people are a result of broken civil-societies and a complete and utter lack of trust in there social segment or area.

I am not saying that this excuses anything but its a fact that violence breads violence and that you can’t do business without assurance and trust.

But this doesn’t happen for no reason, people will opt for the peacefull solution if they think they have one. The precetage of the population that simply enjoy hurting other people is completley insignificant and with the state that is where these people are going to end up as soldiers and police, which doesn’t make the situation any better anyhow.

People with extremly high time preferences also tend towards crime but the free market will be more efficent then the state at stopping them.

Notice that people who become rich are the exact opposite of the later category. They become rich because they have extremly low time preferences.

If “good people” (people with consciences) are not actively organized and actively preventing coercion, the people who have no problem with coercion will run everything.

Yes, that is exactly what the problem with our current society is and I have no argument against that this is a problem.

If people empower criminals and don’t care about violence and oppression naturally we are going to have. That is why I am an anarchist.

You argument sounds more like “if there was a magical button to remove government tomorrow we shouldn’t press it”. I agree we can’t, the resulting turmoil will create a more totalitarian state then the one we have.

But this isn’t what most anarchists are saying we should do … at least not on this forum though a lot of other anarchists are for a coup d’etat style armed revolution. But that has never worked, unless the state is truly terrible to start with it has always made things worse.

Counter-economics and eventually if necessary a war of independence is the only way I see anarchy happening, in such a case the vigilans and necessary institutions will be there when the state is thrown out.

19

Should someone have the liberty to point a firearm at your head? No. Then why should they have the liberty to put you within the blast radius of a nuclear weapon? They shouldn’t. It is threat of force, which is a tort (and so, is not a liberty).

20

Good point. So are many others above. Thanks!