RJ Moore II: 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.
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.
The Hutu tribe can teach us a few things about luddite military technology's killing power.
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
Stranger: RJ Moore II: 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. The Hutu tribe can teach us a few things about luddite military technology's killing power.
Yes, people are very easy to kill in general. I could do it with my bare hands. My point was, however, that there is nothing especial about a particular point in technological development.
My point would be that a tribe of bloodthirsty savages is much more dangerous than someone who has military technology, so why would you want people to have anything else than the most lethal firepower at their fingertips?
Stranger: My point would be that a tribe of bloodthirsty savages is much more dangerous than someone who has military technology, so why would you want people to have anything else than the most lethal firepower at their fingertips?
My thoughts on this are that it is not power that is the problem, but a lack of power in the hands of others. Ideally we'd all be indestructable, failing that instantaneous destruction should be at our command.
I'd never considered that. It's a very good point.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
dbooksta: Sphairon: Please tell me: how exactly do you expect a violation of libertarian principles to "make you safe"? Here's one way: Strict control of detonators. The United States imposes criminal penalties on anyone who possesses detonators without explicit state permission to do so. As a result many nutjobs who might whip up a truck bomb are unable to acquire one of the key ingredients. But my right as an individual to build or buy detonators without state oversight is infringed. My right to peacably possess detonators is also infringed.
Sphairon: Please tell me: how exactly do you expect a violation of libertarian principles to "make you safe"?
Please tell me: how exactly do you expect a violation of libertarian principles to "make you safe"?
Here's one way: Strict control of detonators. The United States imposes criminal penalties on anyone who possesses detonators without explicit state permission to do so. As a result many nutjobs who might whip up a truck bomb are unable to acquire one of the key ingredients. But my right as an individual to build or buy detonators without state oversight is infringed. My right to peacably possess detonators is also infringed.
Please, do tell me, why is it that we need the state to take care of this?
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
liberty student:The definition of terrorism, is political violence against non-combatants. If you eliminate formalized politics, you seriously compromise the motive for political violence.
How would you eliminate statists or aspiring statists? If you couldn't eliminate them, how would you protect non-statists?
I'm also hovering between minarchy and anarchism, leaning toward minarchy . Sadly, I think about the most promising course is to do as Jefferson said,
It seems states, like most things, can start as a good thing, but is probably going to be corrupted. I think anarchists, minarchists and small government types in general, can be allied in this current political environment and the closer we get to our ideals the more we may have to depart company. But in general, just about any effort to reduce the current state is a positive thing. I don't think we need to get too anatagonistic toward one another at this stage of the game. Of course, some will favor immediate reductions in international intervention and some will most strongly oppose domestic intervention, etc.
"The best way to bail out the economy is with liberty, not with federal reserve notes." - pairunoyd
"The vision of the Austrian must be greater than the blindness of the sheeple." - pairunoyd
dbooksta: can people exercise any measures of prevention or deterrance against random mass murder without infringing the principles of libertarianism?
can people exercise any measures of prevention or deterrance against random mass murder without infringing the principles of libertarianism?
Yes. The production of security is currently monopolized by the state. Without such a monopoly, an unimaginable array of innovations in security would arise, possibly including many that don't even involve killing someone. The whole point of innovation is to provide a solution not previously imagined, and the state, without exception, severely retards (if not destroys) innovation.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
pairunoyd:How would you eliminate statists or aspiring statists? If you couldn't eliminate them, how would you protect non-statists?
Grab onto liberty and never let go. Statism is the monopoly of justice and violence. At all costs, this must be opposed.
pairunoyd:I'm also hovering between minarchy and anarchism, leaning toward minarchy . Sadly, I think about the most promising course is to do as Jefferson said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants"
Minarchy doesn't produce liberty. By definition, it requires that liberty is compromised a little. Which inevitably leads to a lot. While anarchy doesn't guarantee liberty, at least the possibility is there. Under minarchy, liberty is not possible.
pairunoyd:It seems states, like most things, can start as a good thing, but is probably going to be corrupted. I think anarchists, minarchists and small government types in general, can be allied in this current political environment and the closer we get to our ideals the more we may have to depart company. But in general, just about any effort to reduce the current state is a positive thing. I don't think we need to get too anatagonistic toward one another at this stage of the game. Of course, some will favor immediate reductions in international intervention and some will most strongly oppose domestic intervention, etc.
A state is never a good thing. Being forced to do something against your will, is never a good thing. I have to disagree with you on that.
dbooksta: 1. Either argue that unfettered access to refined nuclear material or to detonators will not increase the risk of random mass murder,
1. Either argue that unfettered access to refined nuclear material or to detonators will not increase the risk of random mass murder,
Maybe it will, maybe it won't.
dkoosta: 2. Argue that the cost of maintaining coercive controls on these items exceeds the benefit, or else
2. Argue that the cost of maintaining coercive controls on these items exceeds the benefit, or else
The primary cost of maintaining coercive controls on anything is liberty. I won't give up liberty for any trade-off.
dkoosta: 3. Establish a clear and principled line on when coercive controls (which infringe liberty) are acceptable and when they are not. E.g., detonators yes because XXX but small firearms no because YYY.
3. Establish a clear and principled line on when coercive controls (which infringe liberty) are acceptable and when they are not. E.g., detonators yes because XXX but small firearms no because YYY.
Ah, and here's the crux of the problem. Let's use your line. Ok, got it, line in place - detonators can be controlled because, well, I'm not sure why but that's what you said. Firearms cannot be controlled because, well, I like freedom. Ok. Now make it work. How do you plan to police or enforce your line? What do you do when the government steps over it? By definition, they're better armed than you are, because they just banned the use of some powerful weapons by others.
pairunoyd:"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants"
Go ahead, I'll wait. How is Jefferson's approach supposed to work in an age where the government controls education - meaning that you'll find very few allies - and has literally overwhelming force? Are you going to stand up against tanks and rocket launchers - when all the good weapons were developed secretly within government?
JAlanKatz: Ah, and here's the crux of the problem. Let's use your line. Ok, got it, line in place - detonators can be controlled because, well, I'm not sure why but that's what you said. Firearms cannot be controlled because, well, I like freedom. Ok. Now make it work. How do you plan to police or enforce your line? What do you do when the government steps over it? By definition, they're better armed than you are, because they just banned the use of some powerful weapons by others.
This question isn't limited to government or states. Suppose that we live in anarchy but I want to make a principled argument for disarming my neighbor who is assembling a nuclear bomb in his basement? Is it legitimate for me (or my security contractor) to use force to prevent him from stockpiling refined nuclear material? Or if I do so would I expect every vigilante or private protection organization to condemn me and righteously knock down my door seeking retribution?
Libertarians like to say that initial aggression is never justified. My point here is that some acts -- for example, attempting to acquire WMDs -- may count as implicit aggression because they pose an asymmetric threat.
While further researching this question I did come across this blog which suggests one libertarianish solution: You can stockpile any weapon you want so long as you can be held accountable for its use. I.e., if the weapon is used victims (or their agents) need to be able to determine that you are responsible for the weapon, and you need to be able to offer compensation if the use is found to be a misuse. In practice this ends up sounding like "registration and insurance," which I doubt will appeal to many libertarians, and which is actually more demanding than many of our current laws and regulations. However it does have the advantage that it doesn't have to be done by governments. If I go next door to my neighbor and say, "I'm uncomfortable with you keeping those guns / detonators / refined plutonium pellets in your basement," he can say, "Here's the company that has registered them and escrowed $1MM / $1BB / $1TT if anything bad should happen. Now go away."
dbooksta: This question isn't limited to government or states. Suppose that we live in anarchy but I want to make a principled argument for disarming my neighbor who is assembling a nuclear bomb in his basement? Is it legitimate for me (or my security contractor) to use force to prevent him from stockpiling refined nuclear material? Or if I do so would I expect every vigilante or private protection organization to condemn me and righteously knock down my door seeking retribution? Libertarians like to say that initial aggression is never justified. My point here is that some acts -- for example, attempting to acquire WMDs -- may count as implicit aggression because they pose an asymmetric threat. While further researching this question I did come across this blog which suggests one libertarianish solution: You can stockpile any weapon you want so long as you can be held accountable for its use. I.e., if the weapon is used victims (or their agents) need to be able to determine that you are responsible for the weapon, and you need to be able to offer compensation if the use is found to be a misuse. In practice this ends up sounding like "registration and insurance," which I doubt will appeal to many libertarians, and which is actually more demanding than many of our current laws and regulations. However it does have the advantage that it doesn't have to be done by governments. If I go next door to my neighbor and say, "I'm uncomfortable with you keeping those guns / detonators / refined plutonium pellets in your basement," he can say, "Here's the company that has registered them and escrowed $1MM / $1BB / $1TT if anything bad should happen. Now go away."
Dbooksta this is precicely the solution that many would go for. You may have whatever you desire, but the second you initiate force, force is the response. If you're my neighbor and you're building a nuke (which I've already covered in this thread - its simply NOT possible for an individual) and I disapprove, I can ask you to stop. I can offer to pay you to stop. I can leave. I can pay you to guarantee me that it will not be used against me. I can pay a private agency to kill you if I am killed by it (some will disagree with this, but I'm more Randian than most, so I believe anyone who would initiate violence deserves violence). You could have a contract with your neighbors saying that any such events that result in damages between you will be settled through an arbitrator and they will be financially punished.
The libertarian mindset is that we never initate force, so you may stockpile all you want. Contracts between us will control your use of weaponry. Claiming possession of a WMD poses an asymmetric threat is a slippery slope. Didnt Ted Kennedy call assault rifles WMDs? Who draws the line? The only solution is that you may have whatever you'd like.
*Edit: Further, there is no such thing as a principled argument for limiting the actions of another person. Limit my action, make me a slave. Upon what principle can slavery stand?
JParker: Dbooksta this is precicely the solution that many would go for. You may have whatever you desire, but the second you initiate force, force is the response. If you're my neighbor and you're building a nuke (which I've already covered in this thread - its simply NOT possible for an individual) and I disapprove, I can ask you to stop. I can offer to pay you to stop. I can leave. I can pay you to guarantee me that it will not be used against me. I can pay a private agency to kill you if I am killed by it (some will disagree with this, but I'm more Randian than most, so I believe anyone who would initiate violence deserves violence). You could have a contract with your neighbors saying that any such events that result in damages between you will be settled through an arbitrator and they will be financially punished. The libertarian mindset is that we never initate force, so you may stockpile all you want. Contracts between us will control your use of weaponry. Claiming possession of a WMD poses an asymmetric threat is a slippery slope. Didnt Ted Kennedy call assault rifles WMDs? Who draws the line? The only solution is that you may have whatever you'd like.
That's not a realistic or practical solution. So my neighbor decides to build a bomb in his basement that, if detonated, would destroy my family and property. If I don't like it I have to leave or try to pay him to stop? That's a recipe for blackmail: I buy property near wealthy people who value their lives and say, "The cost of me not building a bomb on my property that would threaten your life is $1MM a year. No deal? Well you had better hope my dog doesn't step on the trigger.... Or you could move someplace safer. People don't like to buy near me, but I'll give you $1 for your land." Not to mention that plenty of people are stupid, dangerous, and/or unwilling to be reasoned with -- which is a more tractable problem when they don't possess asymmetric weapons.
JParker: *Edit: Further, there is no such thing as a principled argument for limiting the actions of another person. Limit my action, make me a slave. Upon what principle can slavery stand?
Isn't there a libertarian principle along the lines of, "Your right to act ends when it infringes somebody else's rights?"
Change your bomb to a shotgun, or a hunting knife, and then tell me if you are standing for a principled, consistent and rational idea or not.
Because I don't think you are. You're doing what many people do when trying to argue against liberty and libertarianism. You're searching for extremes to hypothesize, and find the flaws based upon extreme examples.
Why not just propose that your neighbor has traded with space aliens, who have equipped him with his own galactic armada?
Btw, you have not responded twice now to my request to justify your claims with facts. I'll ask for a third time. You claim that the state has stopped nuclear attacks. When? Who? Where?
We can play theoretical mind games and manufacture our own facts and truths, or we can argue sincerely and accurately. Up to you.
I too have a problem with absolute non-interventionism - I ask is it really practical to do so I keep thinking of poor little Belgium it has pursued a policy of neutrality for much of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and it did not stop its neighbour Germany from aggressing against it so as to strike against France. How would one prevent tiny libertarian statelets being picked off one by one by a much larger neighbour if they professed a policy of non-intervention?
My answer is that I beleive that defence on the free market would of course be flexible and dynamic than what is normally assumed and their defensive posture would ultimately be determined by individual circumstances facing them and that defence agencies might well chose a policy of intervention over non-intervention or enter alliances with other states against much more threatening ones. It might even pre-empt a war if it calculated the risk of waiting for the attack was much higher than the risk of launching a war now.
liberty student: Btw, you have not responded twice now to my request to justify your claims with facts. I'll ask for a third time. You claim that the state has stopped nuclear attacks. When? Who? Where? We can play theoretical mind games and manufacture our own facts and truths, or we can argue sincerely and accurately. Up to you.
I thought that was just a rhetorical ploy. OK: You want me to "name" specific incidents in which the United States government has prevented men who desired to detonate a high explosive or nuclear bomb so as to kill large numbers of people from doing so. Unfortunately I do not keep news clippings referring to these incidents, which are frequently (but not always) reported in the media. However the fact that something isn't reported or "named" doesn't mean it doesn't happen -- e.g., we are handicapped in debates by the fact that very few defensive uses of firearms are reported, but we still reasonably believe that defensive brandishing may occur millions of times each year. If anyone has access to LEXIS-NEXIS perhaps they could do a search for news reports and court cases on conspiracy and criminal possession of detonators or nuclear material.
I assume, however, that you do not dispute the fact that the federal government is very serious about enforcing its bans on unregulated possession of detonators and refined nuclear material.
I assume you also know that many extremist groups and individuals over recent generations have explicitly conspired to acquire such items in order to perpetrate mass homicide. I assume you know that in many cases such entities have in fact carried out or attempted to carry out attacks using easier and less-controlled low explosives.
Based on these premises I am comfortable asserting -- even without being able to put my hands on specific accounts -- that the state has stopped many attempts to acquire the means to carry out such attacks.
I suppose you could assert that every time the state has jailed someone for trying to acquire these items that the person would not have really gone through with it. Which in a way gets back to my original point: Not many people are willing to wait and see when the destructive potential is so great. And until you can address this majority concern you're just going to be another libertarian foil they can ignore as too high on your own abstract principles to take seriously.
So you admit, you made the assertion without proof. That's fine, I just wanted to be clear, because you've been making consequentialist arguments based upon the effectiveness of government in enforcement, but without proof of effectiveness, your consequentialist position is only speculation and thus, I think we can conlude that part of your argument, is invalid by your own standard.
I'm surprised another aspect hasn't been fully fleshed out in this thread yet - just because there is no state doesn't mean there will not be voluntary restrictive covenants.
Imagine you are the policymaker for an insurance/security company in a pure-market territory. How willing are you going to be to insure and protect an individual who insists on building and maintaining an arsenal of nukes? This is clearly a massive liability to any company who might insure and protect such a person. The potential risk is much higher than the profit that would result from this customer paying his premiums - so no company will ever insure or protect him without his sigining a contract which stipulates he won't keep nukes - or at the very least that he will keep his nukes in a very safe out of the way place where detonation will harm no one (he would have to own a lot of land for this, of course).
Of course, the individual could still choose to have his nukes - but then he is uninsurable and completely on his own as far as his own security. Even nukes are no guarantee of safety - in fact, nukes are a surprisingly bad weapon of self defense.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap