Possible exceptions to property rights

Donny with an A:

That is, what could a possessor of anthrax say in his own defense if confronted by such an argument?

"I'm a WMD collector" - sounds rather stupid, but should we forbid lifestyles that are dangerous and unappealing to ourselves? That'd be pretty unlibertarian.

"I'm a researcher and need the anthrax for a specific matter" - most people have no in-depth chemistry knowledge, so we can't judge whether he's a genuine researcher or a terrorist. Barring him from using anthrax may cause revolutionary developments to not occur.

"I'm a weapons dealer and PDA X requests to buy WMDs because PDA Y already has some" - Once in circulation, WMDs will cause demand for further WMDs to rise. Do we want anybody to abandon his right of self-defense? After all, nuclear deterrence could apparently only be countered by an equal amount of nuclear deterrence.

 

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.

No it's not.

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.

Either my English is unintendedly terrible (sorry for that) or I've got my wires crossed completely (even more sorry here). What I tried to express is:

Keeping a gun in your home does not mean you want to kill people with it.

Hope we can reach a consensus now. ;)

Donny with an A:

Well so it just sounds like you answered the question for yourself, no?

From a libertarian perspective, no more questions could be raised I guess.

 

Well and remember, there's nothing in libertarian thinking that keeps you from forming a community with other people who would be glad to give up their right to possess dangerous substances like anthrax (or to recognize certain limits on that right), and denying access to anyone who refused to recognize that rule.  I know I'd be much happier in a community like that, and I'm sure most other people would be too.  As you said, though, some people might have some pretty weird desires, and would feel unjustly constrained in such a society.  I think the proper libertarian response is to say that they should be free to go form a community of their own where their activities are not looked down upon.

 

Keeping a gun in your home does not mean you want to kill people with it.

Hope we can reach a consensus now. ;)

Donny with an A:

Well so it just sounds like you answered the question for yourself, no?

From a libertarian perspective, no more questions could be raised I guess.

 

But is does imply that you MIGHT use it to kill someone. It doesn't matter if you are the criminal or the victim. If I have machine guns around my property, this does imply I will shoot people on my property. It is only the matter of action that you have something in, which justifies a threat.

Assume I walk down the street with a loaded gun and I am in firing position. If no one harms me by their right of defense, should I be punished for doing this. My only punishment for this would be getting shot myself by someone else. Stupidity punishes itself, like seat belt laws don't allow for.

Donny with an A:

Well and remember, there's nothing in libertarian thinking that keeps you from forming a community with other people who would be glad to give up their right to possess dangerous substances like anthrax (or to recognize certain limits on that right), and denying access to anyone who refused to recognize that rule.  I know I'd be much happier in a community like that, and I'm sure most other people would be too.  As you said, though, some people might have some pretty weird desires, and would feel unjustly constrained in such a society.  I think the proper libertarian response is to say that they should be free to go form a community of their own where their activities are not looked down upon.

Isn't that a state. Suppose I buy private property inside that " community", can you forcefully evict me

Currently we can't form our own society, because all the land is taken up by states. Me not paying any taxes at all is looked down upon everywhere.

It's no more a state than a gated community is a state.  If the territory is voluntarily incorporated, where the corporation holds certain rights over the land, there's no problem.  If you bought property from the corporation, it would be yours and the community's rules wouldn't apply to your land.  But good luck buying that land; remember, part of the title belongs to the community.

I think it goes without saying that we ought to consider ownership of one particular arrangement of molecules no different from ownership of another particular arrangement of them whether the arrangement is called: land, food, guns, bombs, or anthrax.

Does anyone honestly think there will be some huge market for indiscriminant slaughter machines in absence of state? That a market for mass death and destruction would exist in a private society? Or that it even exists now? That a market for state created weapons, intended for state purposes, to defend from or retaliate against other STATES would find much application at all in a stateless society? If such horrors  and abstractions as democracy and state are removed from society, then men who live next to criminals cannot/will-not be viewed as their minions or their supporters, only their victims. So using a nuke against the slave owners plantation, burning all his slaves alive with him, would certainly qualify one for being the target of a local lynch mob. It seems the possessors of such weapons would have a hard time forming private law relations and any PDA that defended them would as well. Remember, that the man does not exist in a vacuum, nor does his PDA or whatnot.

I claim public ownership over the means of reproduction. Render your wives unto me!

And is the community going to revoke that title, even after the original community homesteader of that land dies. The problem with this is that there would be no free market. In this case, one defending the community title to that land after the owner is dead would use the socialist position that I am imposing the free market upon you.

A voluntary State is still a State. 

Donny with an A:

It's no more a state than a gated community is a state.  If the territory is voluntarily incorporated, where the corporation holds certain rights over the land, there's no problem.  If you bought property from the corporation, it would be yours and the community's rules wouldn't apply to your land.  But good luck buying that land; remember, part of the title belongs to the community.

 

Fine, I build my 'terrorist' mud hut just outside of your walled community, across from the fancy gate, adjacent to the tennis court. It cannot meaningfully do this unless it extends the claimed territory to lands outside of those it has legitimately labored or purchased. Same reason racists in "NoHonkeysVille" are doomed to failure unless they use force. Though I suppose one could till the land and plant flowers and build a park that stretches oh... whats the range of anthrax on the wind? 50 miles?... from the center of your community.

I honestly do not think such solutions are likely to occur or will be effective... actually BECAUSE I do not think they would be effective.

Andrew, you have to understand that what you're arguing right now is that certain kinds of voluntary, contractual relationships formed on private property are illegitimate.  Do you feel that gated communities, apartment buildings, condominiums, and housing associations are unlibertarian?

 

Brainpolice:

I claim public ownership over the means of reproduction. Render your wives unto me!

hookers were scared of being socialized in Russia. :P

 

ThorsMitersaw, why would I have a problem with you building your "terrorist" mudhut outside of my community?  The borders would undoubtedly be protected by a security team, so you could build anything you wanted, as long as the land was yours.  If I saw you getting ready to launch an attack on me or any other member of my community, though, you better believe I'd have something to say about it.