Hypothetical case:
Let's say I'm a fundamentalist muslim living in a Libertarian country and I keep in my fridge samples of anthrax, malaria, smallpox and several other deadly bacteria strains. They suspect I might be setting up a terrorist attack (and I really am, but they're not sure).
Are my christian neigbours entitled to send their protection agencies to raid my home and dispose of the dangerous substances? Is pre-emptive strike justified?
If not, what other solutions are there?
xSFx: Are my christian neigbours entitled to send their protection agencies to raid my home
Are my christian neigbours entitled to send their protection agencies to raid my home
Of course not. (But your own protection agency might well disallow you storing such things, and have a clause allowing it to send people to make sure you're not violating that agreement if there's any reason to think you are, etc.)
μὴ παραχώρει τοῖς κακοῖς ἀλλ' εὐτολμώτερον ἀντιβάδιζε.
Paul: Of course not. (But your own protection agency might well disallow you storing such things, and have a clause allowing it to send people to make sure you're not violating that agreement if there's any reason to think you are, etc.)
Now Mr. X, being the clever entrepreneur that he is, recognizes the market niche: insurance and protection policies for terrorists in the making. So he provides policies which explicitly allow possession of hazardous substances.One day, one of his clients indeed releases a bio weapon, resulting in mass death and destruction. Some people survive and demand compensation. Mr. X however manages to "negotiate" a compromise: no compensation for no further WMD releases (Mr. X, being the shady businessman that he is, could easily purchase various WMDs from his customers). The demanding party, still afraid of all the mayhem around them, gives in.Sure, Mr. X might as well exist in a world where private ownership of WMDs is against the law. However, in such a world, there's at least the likelihood of Mr. X being disarmed before any damage is done. The 'intimidation' trump card of X's WMDs can only be played out in an anarchist society, as far as I see.
Just curious - how many more times will this alleged exception be brought up? There are many threads that have discussed this concept to the death.
-Jon
I cannot be caged. I cannot be controlled. Understand this as you die, ever pathetic, ever fools.
Irenicus' Diaries.
The landowner has the right to evict you, but then again he would have to be aware of your activities.
Minarchism failed because it is socialism || A challenge to minarchists || Private roads and cities || A two-stage strategy for freedom
Jon Irenicus: Just curious - how many more times will this alleged exception be brought up? There are many threads that have discussed this concept to the death. -Jon
In a statist society, the danger of terrorist attacks is supposed to be reduced by intrusive government policies and preemptive police activity. Does that make terrorist attacks impossible? Certainly not. Does it indeed diminish the possibility of a terrorist attack occuring? Yes, maybe just slightly, but yes. Is it worth the cost? Depends on your valuations. I have to confess I'm a utilitarian concerning that matter. So we might get into fundamental trouble discussing it. Still, I consider the topic an elephant anarchists pretend not to see. In an anarchist society, there is no way of effectively preventing a terrorist assault. The only way to work against terrorist attacks in an anarchist society is to expel terrorists directly from your or indirectly from their property, or to refuse doing business with them. Now imagine a young jihadist being refused everything for people dislike his views. Such a person is most gladly going to engage in a suicide bombing or a WMD assault. He neither needs insurance nor defense companies to do that. He just needs a bomb or WMD, and the anarchist society is not going to bar him from getting it, while a statist society at least places some obstacles in the way. Plus, a statist society could expropriate him of his bombs before he can do any harm. Anarchists could not. Conclusively, an anarchist society is completely unable to take preemptive action in order to prevent disproportional damage from being done. They may just stand by and watch (see the trolley problem). Maybe I'm wrong, but I consider that anarchism's biggest blind spot.
A PDA would not be entitled to do that, but it could. However, if right, one and the PDA could be fined for invasion regardless. If evidence of a terrosit plot, either the finding PDA can punish you, our your own, if you violate their "dangerous substance" clause on your contract
However, if wrong, and depending on contract, one could be thrown in prison by yourself or by your PDA.
That is why I think there needs to be a lbertarian legal code or constitution. But I prefer to judge things by their situation, according to fundamental laws of invasion of property and person.
Democracy is nothing more than replacing bullets with ballots
If Pro is the opposite of Con. What is the opposite of Progress?
Now imagine a young jihadist being refused everything for people dislike his views. Such a person is most gladly going to engage in a suicide bombing or a WMD assault. He neither needs insurance nor defense companies to do that.
Yes, oh the horror. Exactly why would this person not simply associate with others who share or tolerate his views? Why would he be inclined to blow up others who've done nothing wrong, and merely do not want to associate with him? I can conjure up any number of hypothetical absurdities. Oh, what if the aliens land on Earth? THEN WHAT?!
He just needs a bomb or WMD, and the anarchist society is not going to bar him from getting it, while a statist society at least places some obstacles in the way. Plus, a statist society could expropriate him of his bombs before he can do any harm. Anarchists could not.
It can't, because...?
Sphairon: Still, I consider the topic an elephant anarchists pretend not to see. In an anarchist society, there is no way of effectively preventing a terrorist assault.
There is no way of preventing a terrorist assault in any society.
Jon Irenicus: Exactly why would this person not simply associate with others who share or tolerate his views? Why would he be inclined to blow up others who've done nothing wrong, and merely do not want to associate with him?
Exactly why would this person not simply associate with others who share or tolerate his views? Why would he be inclined to blow up others who've done nothing wrong, and merely do not want to associate with him?
Jon Irenicus: I can conjure up any number of hypothetical absurdities. Oh, what if the aliens land on Earth? THEN WHAT?!
Jon Irenicus: It can't, because...? -Jon
Stranger:There is no way of preventing a terrorist assault in any society.
Should you be allowed to shoot someone if he/she points a loaded gun at you? Or should you be forced to allow him/her to shoot you first? If the answer is "yes, you can shoot", the question becomes, "if someone stores WMDs in his/her basement, is that equivalent to pointing a loaded gun at you?".
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
Your premise is that everybody acts rationally. Sure, a rational person is not going to blow anybody up, but is going to resolve arguments verbally or by using the market, non-aggressively. But if we base our predictions on solely rational acts of purely rational individuals, we may as well use Keynesian formula magic to determine the outcome of economics.
My premise is that individuals who have little to no reason to blow each other up will not do so, unless given reason to, say like a State interfering with their domestic affairs. It's also silly to base predictions on what are exceptions, I'd think.
Let's assume my highest goal in life is to gather a ticket to paradise which, as my holy book or my holy interpreter explains, can only be achieved by blowing up some not-so-religious folks. I'm therefore rationally inclined to blow people up by an irrational demand from my religion. Rational thinking, when being misused, does not prevent violence, but may actually stir it. Man's ability to use his mind is no panacea against violence and bloodshed.
This is rational in the most instrumental sense of the word.
Of course, in an anarchist society, one could still expropriate the terrorist. However, this person would be committing theft and, depending on the value of the bomb / WMD, is likely to encounter high compensation charges. A statist society could mandate government theft to uphold peace and order.
Not if they were intending to use them to harm others, and this could be proven. Compensation would only be necessary if this were not the case. The PDA (or anyone more generally) would bear the burden of the proof.
I'm aware that government theft is not the height of moral action either, but as I said, I'm a utilitarian on that matter. I'd rather have a government violating rights than a terrorist killing masses of people. Of course, it always depends on the degree and usefulness of rights violations as well. One shouldn't fall for slippery slopes.
Right, let's ignore all the problems governments face, such as the calculation problem, pressure groups within them, a tendency to expand control over the areas they monopolize and to strengthen domestic controls. Must generate a veritable profusion of utils.
I cannot be caged. I cannot be </