However, the issue still remains. What if Bill Gates takes his nuclear weapons development to a remote island in his own possession where no others are within the blast radius? Then he is not threatening anyone. He should be allowed to develop his weapons, if we truly respect his right to the liberty of collecting nuclear weapons. Just like stamp collectors are allowed to collect stamps, or gun owners are allowed to collect guns.
^ yes.
“What if Bill Gates takes his nuclear weapons development to a remote island in his own possession where no others are within the blast radius? Then he is not threatening anyone.”
How would we know if he moved the bomb to a more populated locale?
How would you know that you neighbor isn’t looking at you through the scope on his rifle from inside his house? Does that mean people shouldn’t be allowed to have rifles?
“How would you know that you neighbor isn’t looking at you through the scope on his rifle from inside his house? Does that mean people shouldn’t be allowed to have rifles?”
The amount of damage a nuke can do and the amount of damage a rifle can do are drastically different. If I knew of a rifle that could do the same amount of damage a nuke can do, you’re damn right I’d try to ban it.
And yet, even with government all over the planet (which supposedly have the ability to ban weapons) nuclear weapons are all over the place.
“And yet, even with government all over the planet (which supposedly have the ability to ban weapons) nuclear weapons are all over the place.”
Based on my cursory look at the information, it seems that there are 8 declared nuclear states (US, Russia, UK, France, China, India, Pakistan and North Korea) and one undeclared nuclear state (Israel.)
What if Bill Gates takes his nuclear weapons development to a remote island in his own possession where no others are within the blast radius?
“What if Bill Gates buys all of Latvia and builds roof all over Latvia and says no one can leave”…
its a bit of a strange scenario. If its taken down a few notches and your neighbour decided to convert his house to an explosives storage facility or use the property to store chemical waste, one would hope that there were local rules or restrictions in place without having to wait for some technical trespass to occur
Likewise in the Bill Gates scenario , if he decided to sell his land to modern version of a Fascist state as they wanted to build a base as a prelude to invasion, I dont think a Librtarian would have to conclude that there is a hole in their theory by taking action in advance of a trespass
There are number of absurd practial scenarios you can make where applying libertarian principles becomes difficult. That doesn’t make them bad guidelines for ethics…
This isn’t really a problem at all, if people feel threatened by someones nukes they will stop him. If they trust the holder of the nukes and his intentions enough that the nukes make them feel safer they will allow it. We don’t need ethics that has a precise solution for every possible scenario of everything they are meant as guidelines for what is right and wrong, not as absolute law about every little detail of everything.
Most of this stuff people bring up is pure fantasy. For more likley events there are clear solutions and in the really bizzare cases we can still get help from the libertarian principles though it may not have clear answer.
In this case someone can’t interfere with something that was already going on on another property. If I live somewhere that is outside the risk-zone of hazardas chemical plants and so forth then we can say from libertarian principles that chancing those circumstances is a problem and I may be entitled to compensation. But exactly where to draw the line and how much is the job of legal entreprenours to figure out…
Especially when you deal with risk this is really complex. Everyone accept a certain degree of risk by living among other people, but exactly how much and how much can you increase the risk you are exposing a particular person to before it becomes a violation…
In most other ideologies these solutions are all completley arbitrary, that we can even have discussion on what is right and wrong (without basing them on some arbitrary condition like the will of the majority) in extreme cases like this is enough for me to prove the superiority of libertarianism…
‘The Government’ should stop crazy people from acquiring nukes. The Government should stop crime. The Government should run elections. The Government should protect the environment. The Government should regulate banks.
^this is a very universal theory I am developing.
Also, the government should arrange marriages, because how people are going to marry each other in anarchy???
In what way would “they” be different from a state in the eyes of the nuclear weapon owner, or from the perspective of any individual whose concepts of freedom and property rights differ from the majority around him? This and similar scenarios logically explain how states have been emerging through history. State = whenever “they” impose their fears and preferences over the “non-they”.
As I stated in an earlier post: if one grants nuclear weapon ownership as an ‘inalienable right’, then why not extend that into every individual having the right to assemble their own armies, navies and airforces, too? This topic is rather absurd, considering.
Look at it this way: a nuclear weapon is not a commemorative stamp… I would imagine anyone stockpiling bombs would simply be doing so to make as many enemies as possible or at least scare away their neighbours. Then there’s the problem of what do you do with a garage full of nukes when the ‘collector’ fancies himself as the re-incarnation of Napoleon? (What else are you going to do with nukes; admire them?)
I guess those in an-cap land would have to get used to a permanent state of cold (or hot) war with their neighbours when heavy weapons and ICBMs become everyone’s ‘natural right’… Disagreements like Fred sleeping with Wilson’s wife or George not returning the lawnmower he borrowed three days ago will never be the same!
Putting others at risk is putting them in danger of potential property rights violations and is actionable. If I drive within 6 inches of you at 100mph while you are standing on the sidewalk, I am threatening your safety. You have good reason to believe that a violation of your property rights (in the integrity of your body) is imminent and you are thereby justified in taking action to defend yourself. If you neighbor begins building even a conventional explosive device that is capable of damaging your property, you are justified in taking action to disable, disarm or destroy the device because the device’s mere existence and its indiscriminately destructive nature give you good reason to believe that a violation of your property rights is imminent. Groups of individuals can not reasonably have greater legal rights than individuals acting independently. Therefore, governments have no more right to build weapons of indiscriminate destruction than do individuals and - at least on an ethical level - we are all justified in taking action to disable the indiscriminate destructive capabilities of any government (including bombers and other weapons whose only possible use is indiscriminate, aggressive property rights violations).
Because I believe retaliation is a natural part of human social behavior, I do think offensive weapons have justifiable uses, namely, retaliation. However, indiscriminate offensive weapons cannot have any justifiable use because even if used for retaliation, they cannot be targeted, meaning, any use of such a weapon will necessarily violate the rights of innocent bystanders. A great deal of the weapons in any national government’s arsenal (especially Western governments) are indiscriminate offensive weapons. Anyone with the ability to disable, disarm or destroy such weapons is morally justified to do so and - in a natural order law system - would be fully legally justified, as well.
Clayton -
“People aren’t born sociopaths.”
I used to think so too, but apparently a lot of adult sociopaths started as child sociopaths. I even read about cases of identical twins where one would be totally normal, the other would apparently have no conscience or compassion from the time they were a toddler.
The theory is that “higher emotions” like empathy, compassion, love, etc. have to do with a certain part of the brain, and some people are simply born deficient in that area of their brain. In other words “born without a conscience” and physically incapable of developing one.
They’re not “crazy,” in fact you could call them super-rational, because they act only in what they perceive to be in their personal self interest, regardless of possible consequences for others.
Additionally, some theorize that such people are often well suited for climbing the ranks of hierarchical organizations, simply because they’re 100% ruthless and often crave power over others.
Psychologists have even developed a brain scan which can identify such people, which involves showing people both neutral and highly emotionally charged positive or disturbing images while they undergo an MRI of their brain. Normal people involuntarily have increased brain activity when shown the charged as opposed to boring images, while psychopaths have exactly the same amount of brain activity in either case. They have no real human emotions.
The sociopaths studied by science are the ones who ‘got caught,’ but they might be mainly the dumb ones or the bonkers ones. There are very predictable traits and tics sociopaths display; for example, lying constantly and showing no embarrassment when caught in a lie, being unable to admit fault or guilt, grandiosity, megalomania, being superficially charming, but seeming to be ‘acting’ when displaying emotion.
Remind you of anyone you’ve seen on t.v.?
Strange, disturbing, but as far as I can tell, true.
http://www.amazon.com/Snakes-Suits-When-Psychopaths-Work/dp/0061147893/ref=pd_sim_b_2
There’s a really strong case that 1% of the population will always be going around and acting like criminals. How does a free society deal with this problem?
The answer would seem to involve taking away liberties from hopeless criminals, but who would do this, under what authority, and how? Who would pay for it? And if there’s a group that deals with the hopeless criminals, who keeps that group accountable, and how?
Those who are at risk.
What does this even mean?
Those who are at risk.
Social pressure, monetary pressure, competition with other groups.
Nothing is perfect. Positing a whole bunch of ‘what if’ scenarios can make any society fall apart on paper. The challenge is to give society its best shot at achieving justice/prosperity/etc.
So, a classic example is a con man who goes from town to town gaining peoples trust, taking their money and splitting.
Who is at risk?
Everyone, obviously. The trusting and vulnerable especially.
Let’s say that was done to you. Are you going to make it your business to track them down personally, knowing they probably used an alias and could be anywhere? Hardly anyone would even attempt that. Certainly an old lady just defrauded of her savings wouldn’t attempt that.
Positing a whole bunch of ‘what if’ scenarios can make any society fall apart on paper.
You’re calling my assertion that criminals exist a “what if” scenario?
Will there still be an internet in this anarchist society, Benjamin?
Will there still be telephones? Will there still be criminal databases?
What are the current laws regarding extradition? What happens if a criminal commits a crime in Ohio and then is caught in Illinois?
Why would it be ‘bad’ to own a nuclear weapon? If you have a nuclear bomb in your basement it’s arbitrary to say that the very act of owning such a weapon is aggression. Assuming that the NAP is going to be followed there isn’t really any justification to unilaterally state that you can’t store a nuke in your basement.