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?
A philosophy that only works for a certain norm of people is unlikely to thrive. If libertarianism only works with rational people doing rational things, we might as well give socialism another shot because "people need to adapt first".
It makes no such assumption. My point is that the reverse, i.e. justifying a state based on thought-experiments predicated on local irrationality, the potentiality of which it does much to realize often, is not sensible.
-Jon
I cannot be caged. I cannot be controlled. Understand this as you die, ever pathetic, ever fools.
Irenicus' Diaries.
Keeping a loaded shotgun in your basement isn't threatening anyone, but pointing a loaded shotgun at someone is.
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have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.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.
Sphairon: While government sure is responsible for almost every form of terrorism or sectarian violence there is, I still don't think elimination of the main culprit is going to stop irrational violence completely.
While government sure is responsible for almost every form of terrorism or sectarian violence there is, I still don't think elimination of the main culprit is going to stop irrational violence completely.
Nobody ever claimed it would. But why does anarchy have to be perfect before you support it? Isn't it sufficient that it's just better than now? (Or even no worse?)
μὴ παραχώρει τοῖς κακοῖς ἀλλ' εὐτολμώτερον ἀντιβάδιζε.
I would imagine that in a stateless society, people would still want to form communities with certain rules and policies governing the sorts of things that they would want to have done (for example, services for the poor, police services, streets, etc). I would gladly volunteer to give up my right to store anthrax in my house if everyone else in my community would do so as well, and would be happy to work out some policy for dealing with violations with my fellow community members, according to a decision-making procedure that we had all agreed upon when forming the community. So in the community I lived in, I would imagine that keeping anthrax would be against the rules.
But there's a further question of whether or not keeping anthrax is unjust; that is, whether we'd be justified in coercively stopping you from keeping it. I think the answer of the question will depend on what you think the anthrax-storer is doing. Is the problem that he's exposing others to risk of being infected? In that case, it might be fair to demand that he store the anthrax in a secure manner, so that there was little or no chance that it could accidentally get out and harm others.
Alternatively, the problem could be that the storer was preparing to attack people with the anthrax, and so intervention would be a preemptive measure in the spirit of self-defense. If that's how we look at it, I think the issue becomes about when pre-emption is justified. Clearly if someone tells us that they're going to shoot us, and begins loading a gun, we are justified in using some force to disarm them, even though they have not actually attacked us yet. I think that if your neighbor were explicitly a terrorist, and obtained some anthrax with the explicit intention of infecting others with it, you would surely not have to wait for him to actually start infecting people before you stopped him. But consider alternatively that we would not seem to be justified in coercively depriving our neighbor of his gun, even if we knew that he didn't particularly like us, on account of the fact that he could use it to harm us. If we just suspected that someone might be "a terrorist" (without proof beyond a reasonable doubt), and saw that he had anthrax, it might end up that we can't legitimately interfere, even though it's conceivable that the anthrax could be used to infect people.
One interesting argument I've heard someone bring up is that certain weapons cannot reasonably be used for any legitimate purpose, and could be justly prohibited. The example was an atomic bomb, which cannot reasonably be used in self-defense against a particular aggressor without inflicting enormous collateral damage on a multitude of innocent people. But it seems like this description could conceivably apply to anthrax, if there were no other use for anthrax and if it could not be used in a way that would not violate rights. I'm not sure what I think of this argument, but I think its plausibility can be seriously augmented by thinking about it dialogically. That is, what could a possessor of anthrax say in his own defense if confronted by such an argument?
http://libertarian-left.blogspot.com/
Paul:In an anarchist society there is no way of effectively launching a terrorist assault! Terrorism is a tactic in war against a much stronger opponent...implying the existence of some opponent...
Paul:Nobody ever claimed it would. But why does anarchy have to be perfect before you support it? Isn't it sufficient that it's just better than now? (Or even no worse?)
Jon Irenicus: It makes no such assumption. My point is that the reverse, i.e. justifying a state based on thought-experiments predicated on local irrationality, the potentiality of which it does much to realize often, is not sensible. -Jon
Ego:Keeping a loaded shotgun in your basement isn't threatening anyone, but pointing a loaded shotgun at someone is.
Donny with an A: That is, what could a possessor of anthrax say in his own defense if confronted by such an argument?
That is, what could a possessor of anthrax say in his own defense if confronted by such an argument?
Well so it just sounds like you answered the question for yourself, no?
Sphairon: Ego:Keeping a loaded shotgun in your basement isn't threatening anyone, but pointing a loaded shotgun at someone is.I don't see how that contradicts my statement (if it was related to my statement).
For some reason, you implied that I said keeping a loaded shotgun in your basemant is threatening:
Just because you keep a shotgun in your basement doesn't mean you intend to kill somebody (that's quite a leftist point in favor of gun control, isn't it, sir? ).
I was simply correcting that (odd) charge.
xSFx: 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?
Lets look at this using actual actors.
Lets say you, a paranoid schizophrenic, have a neighbor who you think is a "fundamentalist Muslim" terrorist. Thinking he is plotting a terrorist attack you raid his home.
It is now a legal matter and your use of force must be justified accordingly. Did your invasion gather enough proof that he was about to commit a crime? If it did then you are off the hook. But if you can not meet a burden of proof, you will be convicted of every crime you committed against your neighbor.
Of course, if we were to hold America's 21th century wars to this standard they would undoubtedly be declared supremely criminal.
Sphairon: Stranger:There is no way of preventing a terrorist assault in any society.As I said. But it's possible to lower the chance of an attack by using government force.
Stranger:There is no way of preventing a terrorist assault in any society.
No it's not.
Minarchism failed because it is socialism || A challenge to minarchists || Private roads and cities || A two-stage strategy for freedom
Ego: For some reason, you implied that I said keeping a loaded shotgun in your basemant is threatening: Just because you keep a shotgun in your basement doesn't mean you intend to kill somebody (that's quite a leftist point in favor of gun control, isn't it, sir? ). I was simply correcting that (odd) charge.
Donny with an A:Well so it just sounds like you answered the question for yourself, no?