How can a free society protect itself?

Stranger:

dbooksta:

If I may rephrase it as a non-self-refuting question that applies to this discussion: Yes, I am willing to initiate aggression against a person in order to thwart his attempts to acquire the means to asymmetrically threaten me and my neighbors.

We are not, and so I must sadly inform you that we will be on the side of the defense in this fight, and you will have to kill us to get your way.

Ah yes -- the classic "I will defend to the death your right to stockpile weapons of mass destruction."  How noble.

dbooksta:

Stranger:

dbooksta:

If I may rephrase it as a non-self-refuting question that applies to this discussion: Yes, I am willing to initiate aggression against a person in order to thwart his attempts to acquire the means to asymmetrically threaten me and my neighbors.

We are not, and so I must sadly inform you that we will be on the side of the defense in this fight, and you will have to kill us to get your way.

Ah yes -- the classic "I will defend to the death your right to stockpile weapons of mass destruction."  How noble.

Nobility has nothing to do with it. Material self-interest means it's better for us to have a mutual protection agreement with people who own weapons and respect the ownership of weapons, than with people who want to disarm us.

Do you still want to kill us?

 

dbooksta:

Stranger:

You did not answer the question. Are you ready to go to war in order to avoid going to war?

If I may rephrase it as a non-self-refuting question that applies to this discussion: Yes, I am willing to initiate aggression against a person in order to thwart his attempts to acquire the means to asymmetrically threaten me and my neighbors.

See, you have answered your own question. In a private/free society you and others like you will get together and stop known maniacs who are trying to harm you. Once you have taken responsibility for your own safety then the actions you will take seem pretty clear cut.

I wrote an answer to that question before you even asked it:

http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/2502/42165.aspx#42165

Maxliberty:

See, you have answered your own question. In a private/free society you and others like you will get together and stop known maniacs who are trying to harm you. Once you have taken responsibility for your own safety then the actions you will take seem pretty clear cut.

Now I'm more confused: So it's legitimate for me and some friends to break into a guy's house, take his detonators, and imprison him for defying our decree that nobody we haven't approved should acquire detonators because they pose an asymmetric threat to our safety?  It's legitimate for us to pay a "private" entity to do the same on our behalf?  But it becomes illegitimate as soon as a "government" or "state" does the same thing on our behalf?

dbooksta:

So my request stands: Offer a coherent argument, based on libertarian principles if you wish, that the cost of criminalizing the possession of these items exceeds the benefit.  I.e., imagine I am a completely rational person who has been told that I stand less of a chance of being randomly killed if I sign on to an entity -- call it government -- that aims to imprison any individual who acquires detonators without its sanction.

Or, if you agree that the benefit of control exceeds the cost, then offer a reasoned and principled theory as to when an item can be banned by a coercive entity.

If you agree to trade your freedom for safety, than putting you in a jail with guards lowers probability of you being randomly killed much more than baning detonators.

Anyway I think that in libertarian society it shoud not be illeagal to ban detonators on your own property. So you and likeminded people can buy a piece of land and live here safely.

dbooksta:

Maxliberty:

See, you have answered your own question. In a private/free society you and others like you will get together and stop known maniacs who are trying to harm you. Once you have taken responsibility for your own safety then the actions you will take seem pretty clear cut.

Now I'm more confused: So it's legitimate for me and some friends to break into a guy's house, take his detonators, and imprison him for defying our decree that nobody we haven't approved should acquire detonators because they pose an asymmetric threat to our safety?  It's legitimate for us to pay a "private" entity to do the same on our behalf?  But it becomes illegitimate as soon as a "government" or "state" does the same thing on our behalf?

You are confusing a free society with a society that has universal agreement on everything. It is not possible for everyone to view particular situations exactly the same.

I think that in the case you outlined above where the person holding the detonators appeared to be a legitimate threat that you might have a lot of justifiable support for your actions. However, if it appeared that it was you acting like the maniac you might find yourself the one whose house is raided and imprisoned.

In a free society you are responsible for what you do. You are making the mistake to assume that without government that all the things government currently does would not be done. In your own answer you said you would take action to prevent dangerous people from having explosives. is it realistic to expect everyone will have an unanimous opinion of what that means and when it would be justified?

Most people are in support of the idea that crazy people should not have explosives. Why do you think that would change in a free society?   

dbooksta:

I hesitate to bring the loaded word "terrorism" back into the mix, but that's what we have typically called attacks that aim to destroy large groups of people who have not directly done anything to the attackers.

Maybe indirectly?  Much of the influence for terrorism comes from military occupation or other forms of repression, indirectly perpetrated by the state.

I refuse to believe that society can be destroyed by perpetual amounts of madmen who have no value for their own lives.  I do believe these people exist and they do damage, but I think using statism to stop them will produce worse results.  It often seems different because these random acts of violence are so heinous they receive more public view.

I'll give you a realistic example.  We could argue for firearm prohibition on the argument that it would prevent school shootings.  Of course, prohibition has no effect on those intent on much greater criminal acts; but let's go super-hypothetical and assume it does.  We no longer see these tragic stories appear on our news.  Yet, crime rates go up.  Homicides go up.  Because these things are regular and not saleable to individuals as extraordinary events, the news media fails to continuously show these consequences.  You will only get a random academic study to get noticed every few years, which is not nearly as drawing of public interest as a school shooting.  In reality, you have increased the number of homicides and caused less justice to be maintained.

The real answer is that every doctrine has its weak points. That detonator-purchasing guy, in a libertarian society, can't really be stopped. Infact, even in a balanced state he cannot be stopped.  

Even if he doesn't actually purchase a detonator, but builds himself one (and the internet certainly doesn't experience a lack of those guides), what can you do? 

You can't really say that it can only be used on his own property. If that guy means to blow it in a population center, he won't care about that law. If you legislate laws to stop him, that you are back into the starting point.

As I said, the real answer is that a truly free society (because almost every first-world state today can be considered a relatively free society) can't really protect itself. Just like the supporters of the police state doctrine (even if not in name) can't really promise you the government won't use its powers for malicious purposes, or that some bureaucrats won't misuse the information gathered by monitoring, the advocators of the free society doctrine can't promise you that you will be fully protected. Those are things that you have to choose, and there is no "magic formula" that will make us both free and protected.

dbooksta:

In principle and in general I would tend to agree, but in this case I believe the real world refutes your theory: The U.S. government has been winning the battle to restrict and control both detonaters domestically and refined nuclear material internationally.

Define winning.  You can't possibly know this because you'd have to know that people who want them can't get them.  That's like saying we catch a lot of drugs coming into the country so we are winning the war on drugs.

Ah yes -- the classic "I will defend to the death your right to stockpile weapons of mass destruction."  How noble.

It is noble. What is ignoble is cowering before the prospect of absolute liberty, for fear of some consequences that might or might not eventuate in its presence, and which the state makes likelier anyway... before you try say "it's a religion!", I can just retort "so is your adherence to consequentialism and your belief in the god, the State, to protect you from all Evil..."

There are two ways this question can be interpreted - how specifically will security be provided, or how will it be provided in general?  There is a perfectly workable answer to the question of security provision in general, as others have already mentioned -

We all agree that net wealth is higher in a free society than in a restricted one.  We all also agree that competition raises the quality of a product, while forced monopolies etc... lower the quality, as price remains constant. 

So the general answer to the question is that, ceterus parebus, we have no logical reason to assume anything but that there will be more wealth available for security production in a free society, and that this production will be of higher quality for the price than we currently enjoy.  It's fairly clean cut and based on straightforward economic theory.  You should always expect to be safer per unit of wealth you spend in a free society than in a not-free society.  The claim that people will estimate the amount of security required poorly is irrelevant - governments already grossly underestimate this on a regular basis - or perhaps they just don't care very much.

As for a specific answer - exactly how will they provide it?  That's like asking how to get light from an electric current before Edison invented the lightbulb.  Once the security market is free, all sorts of innovations would begin to appear once more.  Undoubtedly the provision of security would consist in some combination of these new methods along with older, tried and true ones.  

 

 

In this age of suicidal terrorists who can arm themselves with devastating weapons (truck bombs, even bona fide WMDs), it is not realistic to say that we must wait until an act of mass murder is actually launched to take action against a malefactor. But how can we preempt devastating criminal actions without the trappings of a police state? How can we justify taking a man's freedom or property based only on his intentions? In consideration of the terms of modern terrorism, it seems to me that you can't preserve life and property without sacrificing some liberty. The only libertarian response I have gotten so far to these questions is, "Fear is the price of liberty, and I'll gladly pay it." Which, in contrast to most of the libertarian agenda, is not a position that I think many reasonable people will accept. So in the face of these threats is there a basis for sacrificing liberty in defense of life and property that preserves the libertarian spirit -- i.e., that does NOT expose us to a slippery slope that might encompass every other form of government we have seen and detest?

Terrorism is useless without the state. Even if people have any incentive to attack a free society (which for numerous reasons, they wouldn't), it wouldn't be nearly as effective as it is today. The problem lies with the state, the democratic variety in particular. Under a monarch, if a terrorist wanted to make an impact he merely has to kill one person. Under democracy it's a lot harder to get your point across, and states are far more aggressive.

Whether it was "legitimate" or not would be determined by the society. See, this is where the difference between the free market and the state comes in. You most certainly could go into someone's house, but there would be certain consequences to that. You have to decide if the reward(protecting yourself from a potential threat) would outweigh the risk(being wrong and having to pay for your unjust actions). There's a responsibility. This does not exist with the government. If the government raids your house, takes your stuff, shoots your dog, or even shoots you, and it turns out they were wrong, and acted on incorrect information, what happens to them? Nothing. They just go "Whoops, sorry guys. Our bad." This would most certainly not be the case if you and your buddies had done the same thing in a free society.

But hey, if a few innocent people have to die to keep you safe, then so be it. Gotta crack a few eggs to make an omelette, amirite?

Once again, I'd like to cite Walter Block's "Towards a Universal Libertarian Theory of Gun Control" in which he outlines a possible scheme by which to decide whether possession of a potentially dangerous object constitutes legitimate, peaceful ownership or a threat to one's life, liberty and property.

In short, it is wrong to assume that a libertarian society will tolerate any kind of business as long as it's done on your property. If you set up a rocket launcher on your lawn in a crowded city, you're a threat to your neighbors. If you build a super-powerful neutron bomb, you're a threat to everybody. Accordingly, your property may legitimately be raided.

Okay, I'm going to take a shot at this, please pardon the wall of text:

1) About "detonator control": good luck. There are a lot of people like myself out there who grew up hanging out with people who come from military backgrounds, and know how to make a good detonator using some gun powder (or similarly readily available or easily made explosive), a small tube of some sort, a plastic spoon, some medium grade electrical wire, a car battery (or any other kind of high-amperage battery), and (if needed for a timing device) a mechanical alarm clock. Or, if I really want to simplify it, how to wire a cellular telephone into the system so that all I have to do is call that cell phone number and the cell phone acts as the detonator. Sorry, dude, but those are all legitimate materials banning and regulation of which are difficult, if not impossible. Detonator control, like gun control doesn't work. The materials are so readily available, and the weapons so easy to make that controlling them is next to impossible (even gun powder is astonishingly easy to make). Even with extremely strict control structures on automatic weapons and destructive devices in the US, you would be astounded how many slip through totally unnoticed. State control - i.e. bans - has never made the contraband any harder to acquire (or make), it has only made it so that you cannot acquire it without becoming an outlaw. Remember why the AK-47 became so popular: any moron with a machine shop and some cheap materials can make one that functions...it's the same thing with detonators, except the materials might just be cheaper (wood has gotten expensive). Seriously, you received a challenge earlier to name three bans that actually worked. I would add to that: "or would work in an era where knowledge is readily obtainable."

2) About "terrorism"...call the problem for what it is. "Terrorism" is largely a tool of the State, the use of terror to keep the people in line. The United States does it routinely, but nobody seems to be calling the US out on it. (I don't know what else to call it when SWAT teams are shooting complying suspects. According to a (State) textbook on Terrorism, in fact, the term originated to describe the state of government under the "Reign of Terror" in France.) If you want to refer to Jihadist groups like Al Qaeda, Hamas, et cetera, then reference them directly as Jihadist groups. I will point out that a lot of our problem with those groups - and the vast bulk of fuel for the fire - is our military presence in the Middle East (our infidels on their holy ground), and our continued support of the state of Israel. (And a stateless society most certainly would never place soldiers in other regions on a permanent basis, nor would such a society ever enter into an entangling alliance with a foreign State.) Remove those two factors and the largest anti-American recruiting base for those groups almost immediately dries up and blows away. This kind of thing is the exact reason why one of the framers of the US Constitution said something along the lines of free trade with all, entangling alliances with none: it invites problems. Other recruitment points can be stopped by eliminating current State suppression of Islamic practices in the US, such as - quite frankly - forcing Islamic women to bare their faces publicly in front of men who are not their husbands. That's a pretty serious affront to that culture, and is only one of quite a number of affronts. Allow people willing association, and a lot of your recruitment points for those groups will tend to dry up and blow away.

3) I don't see anything that would prevent a libertarian community from contracting mercenaries (I'm just calling it like I see it) to go in, and bring in (or bring down) the people responsible for the attack (the actors, organizers, and planners), to assist in organizing defenses against further attacks (training the militias, giving advice, et cetera), providing leadership in troop action (against invading armies), or simply teaching techniques in self-defense and counter-terrorism to members of the community. There would certainly be absolutely nothing preventing a stateless society from banding together, designing and constructing a defense network of some kind which causes premature detonation of (or somehow disables) most kinds of suicide- or car-bomb type devices before it even really gets into the city.

4) A stateless society would have nothing blocking the ideological conflict that needs to be waged with extremist groups. Seriously, if you try to get on a forum to discuss ideology with any extremist group - be it Hamas, the Black Panthers, National Council of La Raza, or the KKK - you will end up on some government blacklist somewhere. A stateless society would allow free discourse with such individuals - due in part to their ability to freely express their beliefs - by more moderate members of their ideology, or by persons with conflicting ideology.

5) The State (namely the United States) currently tends to have laws prohiting the deliberate and direct assassination of enemy leadership. A stateless society would have no such prohibitions. I'm sure it would be only a matter of hours after who was responsible for an attack became known before some wealthy person put a contract out on the guy who ordered the attack. I'm also sure that a bounty paid for in gold or silver (not susceptable to taxes) enough for someone to retire on would get a lot of contractors willing to take the job. If someone ordered an attack on a stateless society, it would only be a matter of time before a grieving relative either offed them or had them offed.

Are these measures perfect? No, but they are better than expecting people to sacrifice their freedoms in exchange for the false sense of security granted to them by the State. And make no mistake, the State does not make people safe, it only gives them a false sense of safety. People begin saying that "it won't happen here," but that doesn't prevent it from happening, whatever it is. The State virtually never arrives in time to prevent the event or protect people during the event, the State - the vast bulk of the time - simply arrives just in time to begin cleaning up the corpses. It is a false sense of safety people get as a result of the unrealistic outlook they are taught by their parents, educators, and the media. No State can protect you. No sacrifice of freedom to the State can make you safer. It might make you feel safer, but there is a vast world of difference between feeling safer and being safer. The only way to be safer is to be a better, stronger person, freed from artificial and arbitrary boundaries...that is, to act in your individual interest, and to protect yourself - or to directly contract people who have monetary - or other contractual - inerest in protecting you as an indivdiual (i.e. bodyguards). Otherwise there is nothing that can protect you, only things that can disembowel your ability to protect yourself by either removing your tools for self-protections (firearms, knives, SMAWs, etc.) or through giving you the false sense of security to the point where you don't believe in the need to defend yourself...that others (i.e. the State through the police) will do it for you. None of this is real, however. They are only illusions. Banning guns, knives, rocket launchers, detonators, what have you may make you feel safer, but that won't do you any good when somebody makes one out of wholly improvised tools...you're still no less dead or wounded, the State never protected you, it only gave you the false sense that you were being protected, thusly negating your state of mind from protecting yourself.

Now, I do have a couple of different question regarding defense of another on such a scale (note, that I am assuming perfect intelligence, there is no mistake of who is responsible, and it is well and widely known):
Suppose City A comes under attack from State C. Would City A be justified in sending its mercenaries directly in against State C with a mission to take down the poeple responsible for ordering the attack? That is, to what extent is a response justifiable? Must the response be limited to the attackers directly? Or may the State which delivered the orders also be held responsible?
Personally, I would think yes, simply on the basis that if I personally came under attack from an organization, that is how I'd deal with it...go after those responsible not only for the attack proper, but those who delivered the order to do so. After all, the people delivering the order are the actual aggressors, not so much the people simply carrying it out.

Suppose City A and City B are close trading partners. At some point, City A is the victim of a direct attack from State C, which claims direct responsibility for the attack. Since City A's resources are going to be significantly drained by the attack, I think it might be safe to say that City A will unlikely be able to muster up a military response/defense in short order. So, would City B be justified in standing up for its trading partner and attack State C with the purpose of taking out the people who ordered the attack?
Again, I'd think yes, on the basis above, except in this case dealing with if an organization had decided to attack a friend or business parner.

Suppose the above scenario, but City A and City B don't even know each other. Suppose that City B sees what's going on with City A and simply becomes so disgusted over the aggression of State C, that they decide to intervene on City A's behalf. Would their actions be justifiable?
This one, I'm foggy about. On the one hand, there's the nobility streak that tells me to rush to the aid of those unable to defend themselves. On the other hand, however, there is the issue of the fact that I'm dealing with larger communities here, not just families or individuals.

CShirk, you make some useful points but you've sort of twisted away from my questions.  I am not so much interested in states and state-like groups, but rather in the risk that a homicidal individual (or small group of psychopaths) can pose to large groups of "innocent" people, and whether individuals through the state or through their own initiative are justified in taking aggressive action to prevent other people from acquiring the means to commit an asymmetric act.

Perhaps I should define "asymmetric act:" This would be an act of violence that cannot be anticipated and whose damage is totally out of proportion of the ability of people to defend or retaliate against.  We could argue that a democratic state with a truck bomb is not an asymmetric threat.  If they drive it into our town and kill hundreds of us, we can retaliate.  There is also the potential to anticipate a state's action -- we can maintain intelligence activities against them, diplomatic relations, borders, etc.  But an individual with a truck bomb is asymmetric: Your next door neighbor could build and detonate one, and not only may you never realize he was disposed to such an act, but he could even commit it and conceivably get away with it.  And even if he were connected to the crime how can you hold one man to account for the wanton murder of hundreds?  There is no way to deter, defend against, punish, or seek redress for an average guy who snaps and has ready means to commit a truck bombing.

Contrast this with firearms: Yes, psychopaths arm themselves and launch shooting sprees.  But individuals who care can deter and defend against such acts by arming themselves with guns, and in the worst case a gunman kills a few people before being stopped, which is not out of proportion to the punishment that can be meted out to him.

BTW, your description of detonators is not accurate: Explosive devices can be made from gunpowder, but detonators capable of triggering a true "high explosive" are difficult and risky to make at home.  Just look at the number of random acts of violence committed domestically with low explosives versus the number committed with high explosives: Of the many domestic crimes committed with explosives exactly one has succeeded in mass detonation of a high explosive.  In any case, we need not dwell on these nuances because I have also offered nuclear weapons as an example:  Not only have our bans on possession and trafficking in refined weapons-grade material been completely effective (domestically), but it seems extremely unlikely that a black market or domestic hobbyist will ever succeed in violating it.  However, without such a ban we know that it would be fairly easy for an individual to build and use a nuclear bomb.

Note also that this is the empirical rebuttal to those who think bans can't work: We have plenty of evidence of psychopaths who have set out to commit mass murder with the most powerful weapons they could acquire.  Yet the total number of realized acts involving high explosives: 1; involving nuclear explosives: 0.

Now again to the question: Have these bans cost us more than they have benefited us?  Just imagine if every shooting spree or bombing was instead a nuclear explosion.  That's a pretty high hurdle you have to overcome!  And even if our state in actuality has abused our liberty to protect us against these threats, can you argue that in principle it is unjustifiable for a state to preemptively ban these items?  What about individuals: Is it legitimate or not for them to initiate aggression to enforce their own ban against these items?  And where and on what basis do we draw the lines on who may use aggression, against whom, under what conditions, and against what contraband?

dbooksta, you continue to post assertions, but you haven't backed any of them up.  What next, libertarianism has to answer for how to precisely repel an alien invasion, and to your satisfaction?  It's ridiculous.

I asked you,

dbooksta:

Many plots to build bombs for nefarious purposes have been thwarted thanks to the extremely tight controls on acquiring and possessing detonators and refined nuclear material.

Name 3.

I would like an answer.

The reason why I ask, is that again you assert the same point, without any proof.

dbooksta:

In any case, we need not dwell on these nuances because I have also offered nuclear weapons as an example:  Not only have our bans on possession and trafficking in refined weapons-grade material been completely effective (domestically), but it seems extremely unlikely that a black market or domestic hobbyist will ever succeed in violating it.

How can you claim a policy has been effective, unless you can prove that it has stopped attempts.  An absence of attempts is negative proof, and doesn't make your case.

Also,

dbooksta:

Note also that this is the empirical rebuttal to those who think bans can't work: We have plenty of evidence of psychopaths who have set out to commit mass murder with the most powerful weapons they could acquire.  Yet the total number of realized acts involving high explosives: 1; involving nuclear explosives: 0.

That is another appeal to negative proof.

dbooksta:

Now again to the question: Have these bans cost us more than they have benefited us?  Just imagine if every shooting spree or bombing was instead a nuclear explosion.

Why would we imagine it?  Not only is not possible, it is also not realistic.  Aliens?  Space Cannons?  Sorcerer's Spells?

dbooksta:

And even if our state in actuality has abused our liberty to protect us against these threats, can you argue that in principle it is unjustifiable for a state to preemptively ban these items?

Yes, we can make that argument.  It is the foundation of libertarianism.  There are coercive and non-coercive way to do things.  Coercion is not efficient, necessary, moral and frequently, it isn't very effective.

dbooksta:

What about individuals: Is it legitimate or not for them to initiate aggression to enforce their own ban against these items?

Is it ever legitimate to initiate aggression?  That is the question.  If you can justify starting violence, then you don't have any moral argument to make.

dbooksta:

And where and on what basis do we draw the lines on who may use aggression, against whom, under what conditions, and against what contraband?

Anyone can use aggression.  It's that no one should.  So if you initiate aggression, you should be prepared for the consequences.  You can't hide behind sovereign immunity, and exercise aggression wantonly.

dbooksta,

You're making assumptions that the state has been successful. Banning detonators is pointless. Google them and fire away. Your argument that 'high powered' explosives cannot be set off with gunpowder is crazy. TNT, Dynamite, even nitroglycerin are easily made by an individual at home. Hell, cow crap and gasoline can bring down large buildings (OK City). How did the government banning detonators stop the unibomber or Timothy McVeigh? You counter your own arument that the state provides protection by pointing out that individuals can secretly plan and follow through with acts of terrorism. Sure, a nutjob can desire to blow up his own house as you point out, but is this more of a risk than a 'terrorist' wanting to do the same to a whole city to prove a point?

Your nuclear weapon argument is also a total myth. They arent being used because they're expensive, and they're pointless for anything other than a political point. If you want to kill people, chemical/biological weapons are far better, cheaper, etc WMDs. Iran doesn't want nukes to blow up the US, they want nukes b/c the US says they cant have them. And we spend billions trying the ensure they don't get them. That's what it costs us; money.If there was no New York, no DC, where would they bomb? In a libertarian society, where there is no centralized power structure, why use a nuke when chemical weapons will kill just as many people and wont damage the infrastructure? Further, with no power structure to target, mass terrorism would most likely be gone, as has already been pointed out in this thread.  And by the way, during the time period where we've 'controlled' nuclear technology (right after WW2), the  Russians, Chinese, French, British, Taiwanese, Israelis, Indians, Pakistanis and probably several other countries (Germany, South Korea, Japan) have acquired these weapons. Yep, we've totally controlled this market....

dbooksta:

Yet the total number of realized acts involving high explosives: 1; involving nuclear explosives: 0.

And chemical/biological? I'm more worried about anthrax than nukes. Or smallpox, or anything else thats far more likely than nukes. You dont seem to know how nukes work. They're complicated, and require precision that most countries, and definitely most individuals, simply cannot manufacture. Dirty bombs are what people can make, and dirty bombs are nowhere near as deadly as chemical weapons, while still being more expensive.

dbooksta:

Now again to the question: Have these bans cost us more than they have benefited us?  Just imagine if every shooting spree or bombing was instead a nuclear explosion.  That's a pretty high hurdle you have to overcome!

And thats a pretty high leap you just made. I'm sure those kids from Columbine could have acquired and built a nuke.

dbooksta:

And even if our state in actuality has abused our liberty to protect us against these threats, can you argue that in principle it is unjustifiable for a state to preemptively ban these items?

Yes. When 9/11 happens with nail clippers, what makes you think outlawing guns (or anything else) protects us from anything? Disarming people promotes violence. I carry a gun any time I'm out. If you knew this, or even knew it was very likely I was armed, would you try and rob me?

dbooksta:

What about individuals: Is it legitimate or not for them to initiate aggression to enforce their own ban against these items?  And where and on what basis do we draw the lines on who may use aggression, against whom, under what conditions, and against what contraband?

Who said anything about initiating aggression? The solution to this problem is simple. You come on my property, you may possess what I allow you to. If I dont want you bringing a gun to my house, I let you know. If you then procede to bring one, I can make you leave. You may also choose to live in a weapon-free community, where you dont have to worry about it.

Nanotechnology is a million times deadlier in potential than nuclear weapons.  I have never been concerned about private possession of hydrogen bombs, since they are only the tip of the iceberg.  Military ludditeism is silly.