Nuclear/chemical weapons

JonBostwick:

Len Budney:

Basic economic considerations suggest that infrastructure providers, insurers and defense providers will enter into contracts for mutual benefit that will include efficient notifications, denial of service to "criminals and outlaws" (suitably defined for libertarian society), etc.

 

What you describing is social influence. It is completely dissimilar to running someone off their property on the grouds of a broken promise, because it relies on market incentives rather than violent disincentives.

 

Agreed. But I don't want to give the impression that what I'm describing is the only model. Markets are cleverer than I am. It's entirely possible that, using social pressure initially perhaps, the property owners will be convinced to attach covenants to their property whereby they can be evicted for certain infractions. Housing developments are likely to have more restrictive covenants, while western ranches may have none at all. So violently running the nuke guy out of town could in fact be done consistently with a free society. It depends what he bought when he bought his property.

But I still think social pressure is king. I think folks would take anarchy more seriously if they appreciated the immense power of social pressure. Shunning can drive a man to suicide.

--Len.

 

Len Budney:

Agreed. But I don't want to give the impression that what I'm describing is the only model. Markets are cleverer than I am. It's entirely possible that, using social pressure initially perhaps, the property owners will be convinced to attach covenants to their property whereby they can be evicted for certain infractions.

 

 

I'm skeptical of these covenants. They are far too feudal for me. Why should I be restricted by an agreement two people made a hundred years before I was born? 

It's no coincidence that trying to institutionalize this violent solution to the problem(just kick them out) mirrors an anti-libertarian system of land ownership.

I have yet to see a libertarian defense of these covenants, proponents seem to feel that their voluntary nature is self justifying. However, contracts are not promise enforcement. They are transfers of ownership and only enforceable when failure to do so would result in implicit theft. In a contract a person is not entering into a special relationship where the NAP is no longer applicable.

Suppose you and I enter into a contract where I'll mow your lawn in exchange for five dollars. If I mow your lawn and you refuse to pay you have stolen my lawn mowing service, and are obligated to pay me for it. Like wise if I take your five dollars but do not mow your lawn I have stolen the 5 dollars.

But suppose that you and I enter into an agreement that you will mow my lawn or I will beat you up. This is a promise, but it is not a contract. Some might say that I am entitled to beat you up, because you agreed to it. But they miss the point that you while you might have been consenting to the beating when the contract was made, you have since withdrawn the consent. A person can not transfer their freedom of will.

This covenant amounts to nothing more than someone promising that they will not own nukes or we can beat them up.

 

JonBostwick:

Len Budney:

Agreed. But I don't want to give the impression that what I'm describing is the only model. Markets are cleverer than I am. It's entirely possible that, using social pressure initially perhaps, the property owners will be convinced to attach covenants to their property whereby they can be evicted for certain infractions.

 

I'm skeptical of these covenants. They are far too feudal for me. Why should I be restricted by an agreement two people made a hundred years before I was born?

Fair question: I'm not trying to reinvent the "social contract" here!

Here's a scenario that illustrates the sort of thing that's possible: suppose I buy up all the property in Las Vegas, and never sell it, but instead pass it to my kids. I do rent out property; in fact the city of Las Vegas hums along quite happily even though everyone in the place pays me rent. My children and grandchildren would inherit the property in turn, and as landlords would be able to evict anyone they wanted. Since I retained full ownership, "covenants" aren't involved at all. You would describe that as "feudal," and you'd be right: it certainly looks like a feudal fiefdom. I think you'd agree, perhaps reluctantly, that there's nothing illegal or anti-freedom about this scenario.

Instead of renting, I could have sold the property in parcels--but retained various rights-of-way or easements. For example, mineral rights (though there are some debatable questions about mineral rights). Or the right to fly around in my noisy helicopter at low altitudes--i.e., a "noise" easement and a "wind" easement. Or hunting rights. And so on. Rothbard discusses this at some length, because it solves the problem of the smoky factory: if you homestead a property first, you can block a factory's pollution--but if the factory homesteads first, it gets its own property plus a "soot easement" over a larger area. This notion of easements and rights-of-way is critical to my earlier post.

Bearing that in mind, I can create some unusual easements. For example, I could construct a free-market version of "eminent domain" by selling properties but retaining an option to purchase at a specified strike price. Down the road I could take the property back whenever I wanted by exercising the option. The buyer of the property would presumably pay less for it than for a property that wasn't encumbered with an option to buy. When he sold it in turn, he would not be able to invalidate my option to buy, so the next buyer would also discount the property accordingly.

One application of that concept could be a church getting together and buying up an entire town, then selling the parcels to its members while retaining an option to buy. The church elders could then evict anyone who violdated church rules by exercising their option and buying him out.

This covenant amounts to nothing more than someone promising that they will not own nukes or we can beat them up.

You've got your finger on the nub. Rothbard argues convincingly that promises are unenforceable. Only property rights are enforceable. So the promise you describe would be meaningless. But the "covenants" I alluded to--and I might be using the wrong legal term--would represent property rights vested in the HOA, such as an option to purchase. One consequence of my argument is that no enforceable contract will actually say, "or we can beat them up." It will say, in effect, "or we can evict them." The "beating up" kicks in when someone tries to resist eviction.

--Len. 

If you are incapable of discriminating between WMD and other "property" you are not a philosopher, Austrian or otherwise, and not even capable of thought. 

Of course, to be correct there are a number of definitions of ownership, many of which do not include possession or control, so there may be circumstances--and possibly have been--when a corporation or even individual could "own" such material, but do so in a completely innocuous way.

jbar:

If you are incapable of discriminating between WMD and other "property" you are not a philosopher, Austrian or otherwise, and not even capable of thought.

 

Strong words! I'll be interested to hear your characterization of "WMD" that makes them not "property." When you post it, I'll test your definition alongside things like a TNT factory's warehouse full of explosives, and a nuclear power plant, and an arsenal housing a million or so rounds of ammunition, and a fuel storage facility with a few million pounds of flammables, and a chemical plant with enough toxic chemicals on hand to kill the population of Nevada, and...

--Len. 

Len Budney:

jbar:

If you are incapable of discriminating between WMD and other "property" you are not a philosopher, Austrian or otherwise, and not even capable of thought.

 

Strong words! I'll be interested to hear your characterization of "WMD" that makes them not "property." When you post it, I'll test your definition alongside things like a TNT factory's warehouse full of explosives, and a nuclear power plant, and an arsenal housing a million or so rounds of ammunition, and a fuel storage facility with a few million pounds of flammables, and a chemical plant with enough toxic chemicals on hand to kill the population of Nevada, and...

 

Perhaps a definition of "property" is in order? This wouldn't be the first person I've encountered who (for some reason) believes that it is impossible to own something that is traditionally produced by the government.

Incoming arbitrary titles of ownership...

I apologize for my poor choice of words. In economics, philosophy and law it is critical to know exactly which of many possible meanings of a word or statement is the one intended. To know what we are talking about here we have to not only define "property", but "ownership", in the particular context being used. Blanket, doctrinair  and presumptuous definitions  inevitably lead to error.

In the present instance this means recognizing that the expression "weapons of mass destruction" has a different meaning from an arsenal, fuel depot or toxic chemical plant. The difference is that WMD is something specifically and purpose-designed and built to cause mass destruction, whereas the other things you mention may be potentially capable of this--depending again on your definition of "mass destruction"--intervening steps are necessary to convert them to this use and to so employ them. This is why such potentially extremely destructive things do not belong in exactly the same class--and may not sensibly require the same pre-emptive controls on their use or ownership--as easily deployable, purpose-built nuclear, gas or biological weapons systems.

Always guard against comparing "apples and oranges"

 

John

I find this whole thread a striking example of what is wrong with extreme libertarianism.  The truth is that the government can do some good: in this case, the prohibition of the ownership of nuclear weapons will most likely save millions of lives.  And yet it is completely inconsistent to forbid ownership in a society where property rights are fully protected.  So what do you do know? Natural rights Libertarians will work up some scheme by which they imagine that owning nuclear weapons might be illegal (roads, etc.); obviously even if this were to happen, it would be far too late to prevent catastrophe.  Instead of the government confiscating the weapons, the NR Libertarians say, then a PDA or whatever would confiscate them.  But that is beside the point.  That person's right to property has been violated in either case.  Property rights can only take you so far.  There are certainly cases where they are in conflicting interests with a Utilitarian viewpoint, and this is one of them.  I don't understand how you people can support ownership of nuclear weapons, which would porobably cost millions of lives, just so that you can hold on to your petty belief that people have an absolute, God-given 'right' to own property.

In the present instance this means recognizing that the expression "weapons of mass destruction" has a different meaning from an arsenal, fuel depot or toxic chemical plant. The difference is that WMD is something specifically and purpose-designed and built to cause mass destruction...

Sort of the way "guns are specifically and purpose-designed for killing people"? That's begging the question. I can research anthrax for all sorts of purposes, and might even have a good reason to aerosolize it. I say I'm doing legitimate scientific enquiry; you say it's a weapon of mass destruction. Conversely, no WMD in history was ever built for the stated purpose of mass murder. The builder always gives some other reason, like deterrance, defense, power generation, etc. Right now Iran is pursuing nuclear power (which they're specifically allowed to do by the non-proliferation treaty), while the US is claiming it's a weapons program that must be stopped forcibly (and thus the US is violating the treaty).

So in short, it's entirely up to your subjective opinion whether my "fuel reserve" is really the makings of a massive fuel-oil explosive, or whether my epidemiological research is really a biological weapons plant, or whether my nuclear plant is a "breeder reactor for making weapons," etc. For that matter, I could build an honest-to-goodness nuclear warhead without it being a "weapon of mass destruction"; perhaps I'm selling national defense against hostile non-libertarian nations. Defense is perfectly legal.

--Len. 

I find this whole thread a striking example of what is wrong with extreme libertarianism.  The truth is that the government can do some good: in this case, the prohibition of the ownership of nuclear weapons will most likely save millions of lives.

You mean you trust the government with nukes? I don't. The US has already killed hundreds of thousands of people with nuclear weapons. Kennedy nearly ushered in the end of civilization in a game of chicken with Russians and Cubans. If nuclear war ever happens, it will almost certainly be government that waged it.

I have a real problem with nuclear weapons--which is exactly why I think government shouldn't be allowed to have them.

If you were paying attention, on the other hand, I think elimination of government is part of a sound strategy for eliminating nuclear threats. To suggest that libertarians want a nuke in every basement is a gross straw man. 

--Len. 

Len Budney:

You mean you trust the government with nukes? I don't. The US has already killed hundreds of thousands of people with nuclear weapons. Kennedy nearly ushered in the end of civilization in a game of chicken with Russians and Cubans. If nuclear war ever happens, it will almost certainly be government that waged it.

I think that this problem has more to do with the problems of Nationalism.  One would argue (not that I am one of those) that the A-bomb saved thousands of American lives by defeating the Japanese. 

Len Budney:

I have a real problem with nuclear weapons--which is exactly why I think government shouldn't be allowed to have them.

Free ownership of nuclear weapons is the only logically consistent stance to hold if you are a natural rights libertarian.   Period.  According to your people, property rights are nearly godlike and don't require any special properties to take effect.  Nuclear weapons apply through your own logic.  This is a sidestep of the whole point.  Perhaps I agree with you that the government shouldn't be allowed to own them, but this only becomes relevant when nationalism is dissolved.  If other countries have nukes and we don't, that is a serious threat to security.  Personally, I believe that the nuclear 'stalemate' has brought more peace than destruction.

Len Budney:

I think elimination of government is part of a sound strategy for eliminating nuclear threats

Nuclear weapons do not need a government to exist.  To suggest so is absurd.  At least with a government only one person owns the nukes, and isresponsible to the people via the democratic process.  In a Libertarian society, several people would likely own nukes, who were responsible to no one, and the chance of a holocaust is dramatically greater.

 This is my chain of logic:

1.  NR libertarians hold that property rights ought to be upheld at all costs.

2.  Therefore, NR libertarians must uphold a person's right to own a nuclear weapon (if one were to deny this, they would deny their own logic).

3.  This would allow several different people to own nuclear weapons.  These people would be accountable to nobody.  This is compared to a government, one single body, which is accountable to the people via democracy.

4.  There is a much greater chance of a holocaust with several unaccountable people rather than one accountable group of people. 

5.  Therefore, NR libertarians necessarily support a position, the ownership of nuclear weapons, in which it is more likely for a nuclear holocaust to occur.  NR libertarians support a position which is worse for the general popoulation.

 

miksirhc:

Nuclear weapons do not need a government to exist. 

As someone else already pointed out earlier in the thread, making something illegal does not stop individuals from getting their hands on it.

So yeah, nuclear weapons do need a government to exist, because governments are the only ones who care to own them.

One would argue (not that I am one of those) that the A-bomb saved thousands of American lives by defeating the Japanese.

That's eating your cake and having it too. They're too awful not to be controlled by government, but when government uses them on people, they're a godsend. In any case, that claim is so thoroughly debunked by now as not to merit comment.

Free ownership of nuclear weapons is the only logically consistent stance to hold if you are a natural rights libertarian.   Period.

Hey, thanks for telling me what I think! Let's go further: anyone who doesn't smoke weed is no libertarian.

But you're mistaken. A natural rights libertarian should oppose initiation of aggression, including against someone who wants to own a nuke. That's true, but it's a far cry from "free ownership of nuclear weapons." I also would not aggress against drug users, but I still think they're stupid and will take (non-aggressive) steps to exclude them from my vicinity. As a bible believer, I also have a problem with prostitution, pornography and gay sex--but as a libertarian, I confine myself to expressing my views without initiation of aggression.

In short, there's nothing inconsistent about a plumb-line libertarian asking, "How can we keep those darn prostitutes/porn-shops/nukes out of our town?" The thing that makes us libertarian is that we eschew initiation of force to accomplish the goal. Instead we would use persuasion, contractual arrangements and social sanctions like shunning and boycotts.

Nuclear weapons do not need a government to exist.  To suggest so is absurd.

You've misunderstood something: I never said that eliminating government in and of itself eliminates nukes. I think saying "part of a sound strategy" makes that clear.

But the first benefit of eliminating government is indeed that non-governments would have a devil of a time building nuclear arsenals, so what you dismiass as "absurd" has an element of truth. A Trident nuclear missile, for example, has a unit cost of $31 million. They're launched from nuclear missile subs that themselves cost well over a billion dollars each. That's small potatoes when you have 300,000,000 slaves you can force to pay for your weapons, but it's real money to, say, Warren Buffett. All together, the US nuclear program cost $5.8 trillion. If Warren Buffett and Bill Gates pooled every penny they have, they could hypothetically build an arsenal roughly 1% as large as that of the United States.

Remember of course that it was government that invented the things in the first place. It was also military research that has given us the pain ray, etc. Civilian research needs to turn a profit, and mass murder isn't very profitable when you don't have government customers with trillion-dollar budgets. That wouldn't prevent new discoveries from turning to bad uses, but it would mean that research would focus on usefulness to customers, not on maximizing destructive potential.

That's only an observation, though. Remember I said part of a sound plan. If you know much about the production of nuclear weapons, you'll also know that it's an expensive, complicated process. Each and every step of the process is vulnerable to commercial and social pressures. For example, a power generation plant that adds plutonium production as a sideline would be subject to boycott, loss of security and insurance coverage, bad press, and shunning of its owners and employees--or on the other hand to buyouts. Similarly, uranium mines that sell indiscriminantly to angry muslims with shifty eyes would be subject to sanctions, buyout or other pressures. Enrichment technology, likewise. Plutonium retailers, likewise. Machine shops capable of the precision necessary for an implosion-type fission device, ditto. Makers of triggers and conventional explosives for bomb construction, likewise. Providers of testing grounds, the same.

Putting together a nuclear industry is a massive undertaking that requires either: broad acceptance by masses of people who must cooperate to get it done; or vast power to impose your will on others, and vast resources to pay the associated costs.

--Len. 

Spideynw:

As someone else already pointed out earlier in the thread, making something illegal does not stop individuals from getting their hands on it.

That is true, but it makes it considerably harder.  Nobody would argue that it would be harder to get, say, marijuana, if it were legal.

Spideynw:

So yeah, nuclear weapons do need a government to exist, because governments are the only ones who care to own them.

What?  How about Al-Qaeda? I'm sure they would love to get their hands on a couple of nukes.  There are plenty of psychos out there who would love nothing more to dominate the world through aggression or the threat thereof, something made considerably easier with nuclear weapons. And even if you believe that nobody wants a nuclear weapon other than a government, are you willing to stake the lives of millions on that misguided belief?

Len Budney:

That's eating your cake and having it too. They're too awful not to be controlled by government, but when government uses them on people, they're a godsend.

The choice is between two alternatives; one in which many people could possibly own nukes, accountable to nobody but themselves, and between another in which only a certain group of people, a government, can own a nuke, which is directly accountable to the people through the democratic process.  Pointing out 'examples' of government screwing up is not an effective defense, nor is it at all part of the Austrian methodology.  The question is which scenario is better.  Neither is perfect.  But one accountable government is certainly less perncious than hundreds of psychos walking around with nukes.

Len Budney:

Instead we would use persuasion, contractual arrangements and social sanctions like shunning and boycotts.

And while you're busy persuading, using contracts, shunning, and boycotting the man with the nuke, he'll blow you up.  This is simply common sense.  The problem with the NR Libertarian POV is that the criticism of the initiation of force deprives anybody of the prevention of the initiation of force.   The error here is valuing all initiations of force equally.  Is the initiation of force by the government in confiscated one nuke just as pernicious as the initiation of force by the individual with the nuke when he kills millioins?  It is obviously not.  Your goal should not be the outlawing of all of the initiations of force, because doing so will inevitably result in more aggression then there would have been in the first place.  By allowing someone to own a nuke and not aggressing against him, you are tacitly allowing him to committ a much more virulent act of aggression, i.e., the murder of millions.

Len Budney:

All together, the US nuclear program cost $5.8 trillion.

Yes, from 1940-1996.  But that includes a whole lot of expenses (research and development, defense against nukes, dismantling, environmental considerations, etc.)  One only needs to either build one or to buy one (the cost of building all the nukes that we had from 1940-1996 was a little over $400 billion). The truth is that it is possible for people to get bombs if they have enough money.  Considering that we currently have 7,000 nukes, and that it costed $400 billion to build them, it means that a nuke costs about $57 million to build on average.  There are ceratinly organizations and individuals who can afford this. 

 

Len Budney:

Putting together a nuclear industry is a massive undertaking that requires either: broad acceptance by masses of people who must cooperate to get it done; or vast power to impose your will on others, and vast resources to pay the associated costs.

 The creation of a nuke does not need a whole industry, it only needs one factory, which could be operating under the guise of something else.  Anyway, it doesn't matter because the actual state of affairs is not really what I'm arguing about.  What I'm saying is that NR Libertarians argue that what is best for the people is the enforcement of natural rights and the complete outlawing of aggression, whether by government or otherwise.  They claim that this is valid for every circumstance.  Obviously, the day could arise (I would argue that it has already arisen but it doesn't really matter) where it is feasible for a person to obtain a nuke without some government stopping it.  At this point your model breaks down.  A complete enforcement of NR leads to the death of millions.  The logic is therefore inconsistent.

Len Budney:

Remember of course that it was government that invented the things in the first place. It was also military research that has given us the pain ray, etc. Civilian research needs to turn a profit, and mass murder isn't very profitable when you don't have government customers with trillion-dollar budgets. That wouldn't prevent new discoveries from turning to bad uses, but it would mean that research would focus on usefulness to customers, not on maximizing destructive potential.

Conceded, but that's beside the point.  Nukes do exist now, whether or not the government has created them is irrespective to the actual issue.

"Petty belief"? You are exactly what is wrong with the world today. You, and people like you, with their anti-philosophical bias. To be honest though, I'd prefer having private ownership of nukes over a government having any control over them whatsoever. Moreover, I'd prefer this possibility to government existing at all. So sorry if any of you mini-statists think this is a trump card. It isn't. As for the nonsense called democracy, how many more times does it need to be refuted? Bryan Caplan has done so. Friedman has done so. Hoppe has done so. It is a sheer collectivist claptrap. But why not be consistent, and demand democracy in every aspect of the economy, since it's so "accountable" to the people?

Len Budney:

So in short, it's entirely up to your subjective opinion whether my "fuel reserve" is really the makings of a massive fuel-oil explosive, or whether my epidemiological research is really a biological weapons plant, or whether my nuclear plant is a "breeder reactor for making weapons," etc.

 

After you have worked for another twenty years, and made your fortune, we will see if you would not like then to apply your own subjective opinion--whether it conforms to Austrian economic theory and Libertarianism or not-- against anyone who poses a threat, or even a potential threat, of destroying your whole world with weapons against which there is no defense.

Your fear mongering is irrelevant and irrational jbar. More people were killed with machetes in the 20th century than were killed with nuclear weapons.

The power to kill in mass is not granted by weapons.

Stranger:

Your fear mongering is irrelevant and irrational jbar. More people were killed with machetes in the 20th century than were killed with nuclear weapons.

The power to kill in mass is not granted by weapons.

 

Quoted for emphasis. 

MacFall, Stranger and Inquisitor have answered thoroughly enough I think.

This talk of destroying the world is ridiculously overblown. As I pointed out, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett put together could never destroy the world. If we stick with back-of-envelope estimates, we'd concede that they could, say, destroy New York--which is indeed "millions". But at that point the two richest men in the world are flat broke, guaranteed to be caught and executed, and the crisis is over. I'll take that any day over, say, Stalin starving roughly the same number of kulaks, and then going on to kill millions more.

Today, compare 9/11 with its 300 dead to the subsequent war with its hundreds of thousands dead, and the same applies. I'd rather have a few 9/11s a year, without the government-sponsored killing sprees. Millions of lives would be saved. But it gets better! 9/11 itself was retaliation against government killing in the Middle East. Abolishing the government would have saved thousands of lives(admittedly, lives of brownish Muslims) AND averted 9/11.

And finally, you keep ignoring my primary observation: people, we, don't like to be nuked. They will not, contrary to your alarmist fantasies, allow delivery vans full of nukes to crisscross the city. The road's owners will forbid it. And not to repeat my earlier post, people will, with great unanimity, resist and oppose such threats. Today we fall for the absurd ruse of expressing our aversion to them by urging our masters to make more.

--Len

(EDIT: Dang forum software doesn't work right on iPhones. Dang-old paragraphs.)

I never said that the world would be destroyed, only that it would be possible for a person or organization to find a nuke and use it; you yourself said that a nuke or whatever can cost as little as 30 million.Certainly an Al-Qaeda or a mafia or anyone of a number of terrorist organizations or individuals could afford such a nuke. However the question is again irrelevant; a situation where nukes might be available to a few people could arise. It is his situation, the situation I "understand" that we are in now; which we are concerned with. The question is what the nr libertarian response would be in that situation. As for the second question, you misunderstand what I'm saying. I support a noninterventionist foreign policy; there is nothing inherent in government which makes them war-mongering. It is possible to have a government which, while outlawing the possesion of nukes, nevertheless is peaceful in its endeavors. I'm not arguing for the current state over anarchy, but instead for a noninterventionist minarchy over anarchy. And for the third paragraph, you seem to be accepting mob aggression to initiate force to remove a nuke. So you consider this morally correct, even Though it violates your sacred non-aggression principle. This is the inconsistency. Here the mob initiates force, just like a government. This according to your ethics should be outlawed. To allow this type of behavior simply concedes that a full non-aggression world cannot prevent itself against nukes. By being unable to initiate force, people are unable to prevent other people from initiating force. So do you wish to be inconsistent, or do you wish to concede that a society in which the nonaggression axiom is fully enforced is not necessarily the best for the people? The choice is yours.

...you yourself said that a nuke or whatever can cost as little as 30 million.Certainly an Al-Qaeda or a mafia or anyone of a number of terrorist organizations or individuals could afford such a nuke.

It's really important that you understand what's really involved in getting a nuke. They aren't sitting on shelves in Walmart under a sign that says, "$30 Million! Always Low Prices!"

The unit cost includes billions in fixed overhead setting up factories, assembly lines, etc. It's only that low because they're made in large quantities. But without the DoD, there is no nuclear weapons industry, no wholesale market, and hence no suppliers for Walmart's "Nuke" section. Our hypothetical madman has to build the factories, tool up the assembly lines, hire the workers, build silos and bunkers, pay for maintenance, and staff his silo with people willing to push the big red button--but whom he can trust not to launch it without his orders, or blackmail him, or target San Francisco just for kicks.

Some of those costs you're ignoring because you're overlooking that the US buys nukes in bulk, and that's something the world's richest men can't afford. And other costs you're ignoring because they're sunk costs: manpower is a non-issue when you have an armed force that employs millions; trust is not an issue when you can use triply-redundant systems and can court-martial the disobedient and have them shot; testing grounds and silos aren't an issue when you own billions of dollars worth of property; maintenance is not an issue when you have the aforementioned slave labor and a bottomless budget and access to printing presses; etc.

Another problem is the casual assumptions you're making about this guy. Our hypothetical madman is rich enough to afford nukes, which means he has considerable capitol. But he's crazy enough to want to kill millions of people. He made billions in business by convincing people to give him money, but wants simultaneously to lose those billions with no hope of recouping the loss while killing people en masse. So he's smart and sane while at the same time being incredibly insane and/or suicidal.

Note that you aren't describing Bin Ladin! First, he's only worth 300 million--less today, since that was his worth before his assets were seized after 9/11. That might be enough to get a bomb or two, but it isn't enough to spin up production on an arsenal, let alone pay for silos, etc. So he isn't rich enough. He also isn't crazy enough: he attacked the US in retaliation for its past interventions in the Middle East, and present military bases on the Saudi peninsula. Without such provocation, he wouldn't have perpetrated 9/11, and would undoubtedly have found much more effective ways to spend $300 million advancing Islam than in building one or two bombs which would horrify the world's one billion muslims to such a degree that any spiritual influence on his brethren would be nullified. You aren't describing Bin Ladin--you're describing a comic-book supervillain.

And finally, you're ignoring the fact, repeated several times now, that people don't want to be nuked. Free-market, civilian anti-proliferation organizations are guaranteed to exist--and unlike government, they won't build nukes in order to oppose nukes. They'll make contractual arrangements with uranium exporters to facilitate "open-source" public monitoring of large purchases. They'll villify the hell out of Warren Buffett as soon as he starts building his enrichment plant, which will result in boycotts and divestment leaving him flat broke--because remember, Buffett can't print more money, or arrest people for revealing his "state secrets," or command legions of cops to tase people. He'll be ruined, his neighbors will stop speaking to him, security agencies and insurers will drop him. And that's only the legitimate response; Buffett would then have every reason to fear unstable or terrified persons assassinating him--which, recall, he has no army to prevent. Privatized non-proliferation is not only possible; it's relatively uncomplicated.

Finally finally, remember your hypothetical supervillain? Would you rather he manages to pull together a conspiracy to build a handful of nukes from scratch, or would you rather see him become president of the United States? After all, you've hypothesized that he's fabulously wealthy, successful in business, and completely insane. He can surely get himself the presidency. If George W can do it, any filthy-rich psycho with a folksy manner can do it.

--Len.

On a separate note, this statement is false:

By being unable to initiate force, people are unable to prevent other people from initiating force.

Do you carry a firearm? If not, I strongly urge you to do so. It's probably legal where you live, since your timezone suggests you're in the midwest (hopefully not Illinois!). Get the permit, take the NRA training course and a tactical pistol course, buy a handgun and start carrying it at all times. A good place to get started is Greg Perry's essay, Don't bring Ayn Rand to a gunfight.

OK, why is your statement false? And why the digression? Because if you take my advice, you'll learn that self-defense doesn't involve waiting for yourself to be shot before shooting back. The critical bit to realize is that the non-aggression principle forbids not only initiating force, but threatening to do so. Somewhere in the gray zone between threatening to blow my head off, and actually doing so, is where you'll find yourself the proud new owner of two holes in the chest and one in the head. You don't get one free shot in order to prove you've initiated the aggression.

You'll also learn another important thing. Having a firearm isn't a threat. Telling me by email that you're going to punch me in the nose isn't a threat. Saying, "I'm going to shoot you in the ***!" isn't a threat, if you don't have a gun. If I so much as draw a firearm, in any of those situations, I'm guilty of assault. In short, you'll learn the all-important difference between things you consider scary, and actual threats. US law does a half-decent job, in most jurisdictions, of reflecting the nonaggression principle.

--Len. 

How is it inconsistent with the non-aggression principle to say that many individuals will not associate with someone trying to create a nuclear weapon?

Good catch Inquisitor! Miksirhc, paragraphs are your friend.

And for the third paragraph, you seem to be accepting mob aggression to initiate force to remove a nuke. So you consider this morally correct, even Though it violates your sacred non-aggression principle.

It's aggression to hit you, or threaten to do so. It's aggression to shoot your dog, or steal your car. It's not aggression to kick you out of my store. If I own the electric plant, it's not aggression to cancel your contract and stop supplying power. If I own the road, it's not aggression to ban you from my property. If I own the fire department, it's not aggression to return your money and inform you that we aren't responding to fires at your home. If I provide your home insurance, it's not aggression to drop you.

If you never considered that before, DO! You will soon learn to quail before the incredible potency of non-aggressive action.

--Len. 

miksirhc:

The truth is that the government can do some good: in this case, the prohibition of the ownership of nuclear weapons will most likely save millions of lives.

The prohibition of states from using them would have saved real lives, as opposed to the hypothetical lives you're talking about.  So far as I remember, they've been used twice that we're sure of, possibly a couple more times - and in each case, by states.  How many private individuals have produced and used them?  Why exactly should I be more concerned about some hypothetical individual spending his own money to acquire nuclear weapons, than I am about a massive organization with the ability to extract wealth from millions of people, acquiring them?

miksirhc:

That is true, but it makes it considerably harder.  Nobody would argue that it would be harder to get, say, marijuana, if it were legal.

I would.  There is no evidence that making marijuana illegal has reduced its use.  I think it is pretty well-known how easy it is to come by as well.

miksirhc:

What?  How about Al-Qaeda? I'm sure they would love to get their hands on a couple of nukes.  There are plenty of psychos out there who would love nothing more to dominate the world through aggression or the threat thereof, something made considerably easier with nuclear weapons. And even if you believe that nobody wants a nuclear weapon other than a government, are you willing to stake the lives of millions on that misguided belief?

I am pretty sure the reason governments are the only ones that possess wmd's is because of their extremely high cost, unlike marijuana, which costs next to nothing as compared to the cost of wmd's.

So I guess the question should be, if wmd's became "affordable", should they be legal?  I would say the answer is yes.

Just like the proliferation of guns makes the world "safer", so has the proliferation of wmd's.  The U.S. does not threaten anyone who has wmd's.  Instead, we negotiate with them.  Only those without wmd's are attacked or harrassed.

Stranger:

Your fear mongering is irrelevant and irrational jbar. More people were killed with machetes in the 20th century than were killed with nuclear weapons.

The power to kill in mass is not granted by weapons.

 

This is a classic false analogy, in which you are equating weapons against which there is an ad hoc defense, and which are NOT weapons of mass destruction, with weapons against which the only defense is preemption and which, by their nature, once released by a single act will cause mass destruction.

 It doesn't matter whether anyone refers to them as WMD, "defense" systems, or any other innoccuous terms; things are what they are, regardless.  Talk is cheap for those who have nothing "on the line" depending on the outcome of the question..

Len Budney:

The unit cost includes billions in fixed overhead setting up factories, assembly lines, etc. It's only that low because they're made in large quantities. But without the DoD, there is no nuclear weapons industry, no wholesale market, and hence no suppliers for Walmart's "Nuke" section. Our hypothetical madman has to build the factories, tool up the assembly lines, hire the workers, build silos and bunkers, pay for maintenance, and staff his silo with people willing to push the big red button--but whom he can trust not to launch it without his orders, or blackmail him, or target San Francisco just for kicks.

Some of those costs you're ignoring because you're overlooking that the US buys nukes in bulk, and that's something the world's richest men can't afford. And other costs you're ignoring because they're sunk costs: manpower is a non-issue when you have an armed force that employs millions; trust is not an issue when you can use triply-redundant systems and can court-martial the disobedient and have them shot; testing grounds and silos aren't an issue when you own billions of dollars worth of property; maintenance is not an issue when you have the aforementioned slave labor and a bottomless budget and access to printing presses; etc.

 This completely misses the point of my argument.  First, you must admit that it is possible for a situation to arise in which a man has the ownership of a nuclear weapon, irrespective of whether or not a government exists.  There is no way to aprioristically prove, using the Austrian methodology (of which I'm sure you approve) that such a situation is impossible.  Such a situation can exist, and it is my sincere belief that it does exist today; however, this is irrelevant to the argument.  I'm referring to a situation in which a person owns a nuclear weapon in an anarcho-capitalistic society. This is possible, perhaps not under current conditions (although I would think so), but in the future.  The question is whether the NR viewpoint is utilitarian; if it is best for the people.   I say no.

Len Budney:

Another problem is the casual assumptions you're making about this guy. Our hypothetical madman is rich enough to afford nukes, which means he has considerable capitol. But he's crazy enough to want to kill millions of people. He made billions in business by convincing people to give him money, but wants simultaneously to lose those billions with no hope of recouping the loss while killing people en masse. So he's smart and sane while at the same time being incredibly insane and/or suicidal.

We, as economists, make the approximation that people act in order to maximize profit in many of our analyses.  That is because the great majority of people do.  However, there are those not motivated by monetary profit but by other ends.  Certainly their are psychotic people out there.  Perhaps this person has a particular beef with a PDA or a town or something.  He might have inhereted the money, high might have stolen it.  The point is that a person like this could exist.  Certainly Hitler was smart and sane and in the end was insane and suicidal.  History is filled with figures of people who have crazy ends but who are very adept in their choice of means.  To deny so is futile.  A crazy person can own a nuclear weapon.  It may be difficult, but it is possible.  To attempt to prove otherwise is to ignore the Ausrian methodology completely.

Len Budney:

Without such provocation, he wouldn't have perpetrated 9/11, and would undoubtedly have found much more effective ways to spend $300 million advancing Islam than in building one or two bombs which would horrify the world's one billion muslims to such a degree that any spiritual influence on his brethren would be nullified.

Certainly our provocation has resulted in Bin Laden and Al Qaeda's resentment of our country, but don't think that Bin Laden would not love the chance to get his hands on a nuke.  He has declared a lifelong war against the United States.

Len Budney:

You aren't describing Bin Ladin--you're describing a comic-book supervillain.

Again, completely sidestepping the issue.  Psychotic people do exist.  Suicidal people do exist.  There are people out there who would love to kill many people via nukes.  Even if you don't think they exist now, out of some type of ignorance, then you must at least grant that such a person can exist; it is this situation which we must examine.

 

Len Budney:

And finally, you're ignoring the fact, repeated several times now, that people don't want to be nuked. Free-market, civilian anti-proliferation organizations are guaranteed to exist--and unlike government, they won't build nukes in order to oppose nukes. They'll make contractual arrangements with uranium exporters to facilitate "open-source" public monitoring of large purchases. They'll villify the hell out of Warren Buffett as soon as he starts building his enrichment plant, which will result in boycotts and divestment leaving him flat broke--because remember, Buffett can't print more money, or arrest people for revealing his "state secrets," or command legions of cops to tase people. He'll be ruined, his neighbors will stop speaking to him, security agencies and insurers will drop him. And that's only the legitimate response; Buffett would then have every reason to fear unstable or terrified persons assassinating him--which, recall, he has no army to prevent. Privatized non-proliferation is not only possible; it's relatively uncomplicated.

You don't need people's permission to nuke them.  We didn't need ask the people of Hiroshima if they wanted to be nuked before we nuked them. Businesses are only subject to consumer sovereignty when they want to make a profit.  A crazy person seeks to profit by killing other people, aka, nuking them.  A nuclear-loving Warren Buffett will not be subject to 'societal pressures' like boycotts and the like; he wants to kill people.  And again, who cares? We're talking about the possible scenario where a person has a nuclear weapon.

Len Budney:

OK, why is your statement false? And why the digression? Because if you take my advice, you'll learn that self-defense doesn't involve waiting for yourself to be shot before shooting back. The critical bit to realize is that the non-aggression principle forbids not only initiating force, but threatening to do so. Somewhere in the gray zone between threatening to blow my head off, and actually doing so, is where you'll find yourself the proud new owner of two holes in the chest and one in the head. You don't get one free shot in order to prove you've initiated the aggression.

You'll also learn another important thing. Having a firearm isn't a threat. Telling me by email that you're going to punch me in the nose isn't a threat. Saying, "I'm going to shoot you in the ***!" isn't a threat, if you don't have a gun. If I so much as draw a firearm, in any of those situations, I'm guilty of assault. In short, you'll learn the all-important difference between things you consider scary, and actual threats. US law does a half-decent job, in most jurisdictions, of reflecting the nonaggression principle.

OK, I agree with most of this.  And my statement doesn't really contradict what you are saying.  What I was trying to point out is that if you consistently uphold the non-agression axiom then you can't confiscate nuclear weapons before a person uses them.  You can try to protect yourself with bomb shelters, or you can threaten retaliation by force (like carrying a pistol) but that won't change the fact that after the nuke has been launched, millions will die. 

Len Budney:

Good catch Inquisitor! Miksirhc, paragraphs are your friend.

Sorry, iphone too.

Len Budney:

It's aggression to hit you, or threaten to do so. It's aggression to shoot your dog, or steal your car. It's not aggression to kick you out of my store. If I own the electric plant, it's not aggression to cancel your contract and stop supplying power. If I own the road, it's not aggression to ban you from my property. If I own the fire department, it's not aggression to return your money and inform you that we aren't responding to fires at your home. If I provide your home insurance, it's not aggression to drop you.

Just to be clear, I'm saying that it is against the non-agression principle to confiscate nuclear weapons, not to do any of these other things.  And what is your actual opinion on confiscation of nuclear weapons?  Given that a person can possibly own a nuclear weapon (whether now or in the future, you cannot prove that this is impossible), is it justified to confiscate one?

Spideynw:

I would.  There is no evidence that making marijuana illegal has reduced its use.  I think it is pretty well-known how easy it is to come by as well.

Drug laws means a lower supply of drugs at a higher price due to the risk involved transporting it, higher price means less demand.  The law might not change a person's valuations, but by making the good in question more difficult to obtain, it will change it's position on the value scale.

Spideynw:

So I guess the question should be, if wmd's became "affordable", should they be legal?  I would say the answer is yes.

So you would uphold the non-agression axiom at all costs, even if it menat that that axiom would be as a result violated on a huge scale?  You would uphold your axiom at the cost of millions of lives?

jbar:

It doesn't matter whether anyone refers to them as WMD, "defense" systems, or any other innoccuous terms; things are what they are, regardless.

Whether or not something was built specifically for mass destruction is irrelevant as to whether or not it should be illegal.  It is a completely a subjective reason.  The only criteria you are using for making it illegal is that you do not agree with the reason it was built.

People could disagree with the reason almost anything is built, but that is not a valid reason to make it illegal.

So I guess what I'm getting at here is as follows:

1.  Regardless of whether it is currently feasible or not (which I believe that it is), it is possible for somebody, even in an anarcho-capitalist society, to own a nuke or biological weapon.  There is no way to prove otherwise if you follow the Austrian methodology.

2.  We will examine the possible case in which a man owns a nuke or biological weapon.

3.  NR Libertarians uphold the non-agression axiom at all costs.  Therefore, there are two choices.  NR Libertarians can either disregard the non-agression axiom, in which case their logic is inconsistent, or they can uphold the axiom.

4.  If they uphold the axiom, then it is again possible that the man could detonate the nuke or deploy the biological weapon, killing millions.

5.  In this case, the strict adherence to the non-agression axiom resulted in the deaths of millions. 

Just something to keep in mind - deontology and consequentialism are not the only ethical systems out there.

miksirhc:

Drug laws means a lower supply of drugs

No, drug laws may actually drive up the supply of drugs, since it is now more profitable to produce them, given their illegal status.

miksirhc:

The law might not change a person's valuations, but by making the good in question more difficult to obtain, it will change it's position on the value scale.

Price can actually increase some items value.  So yes, it may change the position on a value scale, but it does not necessarily reduce supply.  Demand/supply may be just as high or higher.

Spideynw:

So I guess the question should be, if wmd's became "affordable", should they be legal?  I would say the answer is yes.

miksirhc:

So you would uphold the non-agression axiom at all costs, even if it menat that that axiom would be as a result violated on a huge scale?  You would uphold your axiom at the cost of millions of lives?

It would cost millions of lives either way.  It should be illegal to use it to kill others, but not illegal to purchase wmd's.  That would just make sure they would only be in the hands of those that would actually use them to harm others (i.e. criminals).

miksirhc:

4.  If they uphold the axiom, then it is again possible that the man could detonate the nuke or deploy the biological weapon, killing millions.

5.  In this case, the strict adherence to the non-agression axiom resulted in the deaths of millions. 

The conclusion here is not supported since the assumption is, that simply making something illegal will keep it out of the hands of criminals, which it does not.

Supporting the axiom would more likely result in much fewer deaths, since everyone could own them, not just criminals, given what we have seen are the results of making guns illegal in Washington D.C.

confiscating nuclear weapons

Stealing is always wrong, if that answers your question. We're stuck with pitiful methods of persuasion like banning him from the roads (and so imprisoning him in his own house), shutting off his electricity (and thus freezing him to death), and banning him from the grocery store (and so starving him to death). We can always buy the nuke from his heirs after his emacisted, frozen corpse is found.

--Len

... but what if it WERE feasible... people don't ask before nuking you...

Your hypothetical is seriously flawed because "what if it WERE feasible" assumes in effect that folks will do what it takes to put cheap nukes on Walmart shelves, and then say, "Holy crap! What have we done? I hope nobody nukes us with these things (on sale this weekend only)!"

My point in saying people don't WANT to be nuked is that Walmart won't stock them (because they don't want to be nuked), and Toshiba won't make them (because they don't want to be nuked), and Con Ed won't breed plutonium (because they don't want to be nuked), and Niger won't sell large quantities of uranium to shifty-eyed dudes muttering "death to the infidel!" (because they don't want to be nuked), and likewise makers of fancy centrifuges for the same reason, etc.

The things I mentioned above would be handled by contractual arrangements and other voluntary means, spearheaded by insurers--remember, Buffett's General Reinsurance lost two billion on 9/11 to supercatastrophe policies. I summed it all up as "private anti-proliferation organizations."

--Len