Argument against anarcho-capitalism

Dear Mike,

Threatening your life violates the non-aggression principle.
Consequently, it would be an actionable offense under
anarcho-capitalism.

(If you can make it to any of the Walter Block events,
you should be able to get much better answers from him.)

Best, Michael

Hey Micheal,

Would possession of a nuclear weapon by an individual be, in your opinion, "threatening your life" and therefore against the non-aggression principle?

-- Steve

> Threatening your life violates the non-aggression principle.
> Consequently, it would be an actionable offense under
> anarcho-capitalism.

Hey Micheal,

Would possession of a nuclear weapon by an individual be, in your
opinion, "threatening your life" and therefore against the
non-aggression principle?

-- Steve

Steve,

I suspect you know more about nuclear physics than I do,
therefore are better qualified to answer your own question.

The libertarian point is: if it is life-threatening, then it's a
violation
of NAP. If it's not life-threatening, then it's not a violation of
NAP.

Michael

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups

Sponsor ---------------------~-->

Buy Remanufactured Ink Cartridges & Refill Kits at MyInks.com for:

HP $8-20. Epson $3-9, Canon $5-15, Lexmark $4-17. Free s/h over $50
(US & Canada).

http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=6351
http://us.click.yahoo.com/0zJuRD/6CvGAA/qnsNAA/69cplB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------

-~->

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to

http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Oh, GOD no! Not the nukes argument again!

If we ever get to that glorious day when government is so small that
the only question left is whether or not to regulate nuclear weapons,
then let's have that debate. But until then, arguing whether or not
it's appropriate for government to regulate nukes is why most people
outside the LP (and some inside) think we're all whackos.

- -----Original Message-----

This isn't about nukes. It's about gun control. If there are cases where weapons control is reasonable, then how can we dismiss the idea of weapons/gun control entirely?

-- Steve

I can't believe I'm letting you rope me into this discussion.

The difference between nukes and guns is that one cannot be safely
handled by a person with average IQ and average personal
responsibility, and the other can.

The imminent threat of the gun in my nightstand harming any of my
neighbors is so incredibly low as to not trigger the "Initiation of
Force" tripwire that we as libertarians wish to avoid. However, the
potential threat to my neighbors by keeping fissionable material in
my home (even just for power generation, not to mention as a highly
destructive weapon) clearly does cross that line of initiating force.
That line is probably somewhere between bazookas and "dirty bombs",
but I really don't think we're going to have to vote on the
legalization of nukes any time in my life.

Please, let's not have another thirty emails on this. (Remember Dave
not having time to wade through all the emails to find out when and
where the mayoral forum was.) I promise that this is my last comment
on the topic.

Rob

- -----Original Message-----

So aside from the pollution problem, you see no problem with individuals controlling nuclear weapons?

As for your saying this question is irrelevant:

The first question in gun control discussions is generally, "where do you draw the line?". If your answer is there is no line (as many here have done), then the question of nukes is unavoidable. I think if you actually talk to people about this issue, you'll find that it's positions like that that they find "wacko". And how can we expect to be respected or increase our numbers without well reasoned and defensible positions?

-- Steve

The principle is good and clear: No one has the right to tresspass on or infringe upon the rights of another.

Where the line is drawn in everyday practice (guns, nukes, etc) is not at all clear and everyone has a different opinion. I don't feel good about that state of affairs, because it leaves room for political corruption. Someone in office may decide a law/situation more upon who's paying them and less upon where their gut instinct says the line should be.

Perhaps a tome of situations could be enumerated, voted upon, and kept as case law, with the possibility of some sort of review if the line starts looking very crooked.

BUT THIS IS ALL PROBABLY AN IDEALISTIC WASTE OF TIME at this point. We all agree on less taxes and less government, let's focus on that until we're closer.

How about this one: Residents of Mt. Sutro filed suit against the companies that own and operate Sutro tower, for blasting high-powered radio frequency waves through them. Who should win this case? This is another borderline issue in my book, and one that is real, local, and pertinent.

-Mike

Steve Dekorte wrote:

Mike Dilger wrote:

How about this one: Residents of Mt. Sutro filed suit against the companies that own and operate Sutro tower, for blasting high-powered radio frequency waves through them. Who should win this case? This is another borderline issue in my book, and one that is real, local, and pertinent.

I just found a really interesting theory about these sorts of situations (including the nuke situation) - the theories of Ronald Coase, who applies free market economic theory to measure the efficiency of tort law.

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Coase_World.html

-Mike

Libertarians differ on the boundary, or whether there is one, but there does seem to be a clear *legal* answer. The courts have held that the second amendment applies to weapons of a militia nature: ones that a single person can maintain and use. There are possibly some very-small-yield tactical nuclear weapons that fall into this category, but for the most part, nukes aren't a question.

But I agree with Rob. Discussion about utopian anarchies and personally-owned nuclear weapons are interesting, but let's work on privatizing City Hall first.

~Chris