Since the true libertarian regards WMD’s which target innocents as immoral weapons, even when used in self-defence. How will a stateless society prevent the proliferation of such weapons within its own territories, when theoretically any mad scientist with the brains and the capital could build such a doomsday weapon in his private laboratory?
My tentative answer is such a mad scientist, would be considered a potential aggressor and a very dangerous one and thus be unable to obtain protection from any private defence agency, and would find himself an outlaw at the mercy of anyone who decides to aggress against his person and property. Such people might be ordinary criminals, or even a lynch mob made up of concerned citizens from the local neighbourhood.
Also there is the obvious cost of building such weapons of mass destructions, that could only be built by state taxation. To build and maintain a nuclear missile system is extremely costly. A private defence agency would not own a nuclear bomb, nor would it permit any of its customers to own one as the presence of such a bomb is an indication of aggresive intent and a neighbouring state might invade the free territory on the pretext that a bomb was being developed there. (Just think of Iraq)
Does anybody else have any examples of how a free society would abolish WMD’s? Anybody know of any essays/articles written on the subject?
Well I think a hydrogen bomb and a bottle of budweiser are different things entirely.
Although a person has a right to own a hydrogen bomb, in practice for reasons I have alluded to do above a hypothetical person who owned a bomb would essentially be boycotted from civilised society, which would be unwilling to put up with such risk.
Are you under the impression that in a free society we are all going to agree on the correct course of action on any issue? I think some people will be opposed to any weapons, some people will want as many as they can get and most will be in between. It would be perfectly reasonable for a PDA to want its own WMD as a means to protect its clients from much larger and perhaps hostile forces.
WMD as related to chemical weapons isn’t nearly expensive as nuclear weapons so cost may not be a deterrent.
I think the obvious problem is that very few can afford a nuclear weapon. Second, without state interference, there will be less reason for any sort of war so less use for a nuclear weapon.
There always could be a crazy person with one–but then again, why isn’t there a crazy person with one right now? I’m sure there are suitcase nukes from the Soviet Union left around, someone is holding to sell to a State for major bucks. Why aren’t they insane and blowing stuff up?
It’s just very much a strawman in general–its such an impossibility, I think.
Walter Block has an excellent essay here that covers the issue very nicely, I think. To summarize, the posession of a weapon is legitamite only when the weapon can be “targetted” at aggressors only. Thus, keeping a 10-megaton warhead in the middle of a city is an act of aggression, while having a tactical nuke in the middle of a desert is not. The cost of insurance alone, however, will probably limit NBC ownership quite a bit.
Just to be clear before I proceed; I have not read Walter Block’s essay.
Upon reading your post, wombatron, I came to consider the following: What if you could own a WMD that was both easily assembled and dismantled, spread the “parts” in highly secure locations with regular third-party audits. Now, let us assume that the parts could be assembled within 10 minutes whenever the “target” manifests itself.
In this scenario it seems minutely possible to have low insurance costs and it wouldn’t pose a threat to the general public. Thus it seems like the last hurdle is the legitimacy of believing in a “target” worthy of retaliation using a WMD; but who is to say someone must not be of such a belief? (it seems such a person would not jeopardize any rights)
I’m sorry to go into counterfactuals or trivial matters if you perceive it as such. In any case, I do not disagree with your post, it merely got me thinking [;)]
I would consider an assembled nuclear weapon stored in the house next to mine to be, figuratively speaking, “pointing at me”.
Also, there is no requirement for insurance. Its just unlikely that anyone in a free society would deal with you if you didn’t have at least basic insurance. Chaos Theory goes into that pretty well.
Interesting scenario. That would appear to be legitimate (although it is a continuum problem, and I’m not a court, so don’t quote me [:)]). The only problem, as you said, would be the legitimacy of actually using the weapon. If it is of a large enough yield (or similarly dangerous in another way, like bioweapons or khaki goo), I doubt that any firing of the weapon would be non-aggressive.
Now that I think about it, something similar to your scenario is may be how PDAs and militias and such choose to store their heavy artillery (tactical nukes and chemical weapons and such, anti-state weapons basically): have them dismantled, but able to be easily put together on short notice.
How many individuals do you know in this last century that owned a WMD?
How many governments do you know in this last century that owned a WMD?
Looks like the demand and incentive for such a weapon only exists among governments. Now you are going to say, “Well that’s because we stopped anyone from owning them.” Not true. Have gun bans in certain geographics ever been successful at eliminating guns? How much more unsuccessful would a worldwide WMD ban be? There truth is there is just no incentive for individuals to own one.
How many individuals do you know in this last century that have USED a WMD?
How many governments do you know in this last century that have USED a WMD?
Looks like governments should be banned from having them. Not individuals. If someone actually contributed enough to society to purchase one, that person would have no incentive to use it… unless their own government was stealing their hard-earned money and robbing their liberties… hrmmmm…
Lol. Anyway, history would indicate that lack of governments would create a lack of WMDs.
I would say that it depends on the yield, and on the degree of fallout. A low-fallout tactical nuke would be an excellent weapon against, say, an aircraft carrier, or a tank column.
But if that thing is a gun, and it happened to be pointed towards your head with a finger on the trigger, is the situation still morally neutral? What if the thing is a nuclear weapon, and it happens to be armed, and in the house down the street?
The thing is still morally neutral, though the action may not be.
Is owning a nuclear device the same as committing gun violence? Nope, for the same reason that owning a gun is not the same as committing gun violence.
Is operating a nuclear power plant also verboten in your world?
A gun is discriminatory. It can be targetted to only harm aggressors. A nuke is a different story. In most situations, it could not be used without harming innocents. The point that I am trying to make is that possessing a nuclear weapon in a populated area is an implicit act of aggression. The Block article I linked to in a previous post explains my position better.
By no means. A nuclear power plant is not a weapon; it is not designed to kill. In fact, they are rather bad at it, when it comes down to it.
