libertarians and nukes?

[NMCB3]

You can properly contain a Swiss Army Knife in the pocket of your jeans. It requires a bunker to properly contain a nuclear weapon.

What does proper mean in this context? Who decides whats proper and what isn't? Hasn't the necessary and proper clause of the constitution been perverted beyond all recognition? Do Swiss Army knives and nukes have free will, or are we talking about the specific actions of specific individuals.

 

[nickcoons]

Any group, including government, has only the rights that the individual members of the group have. Therefore, if individuals do not have the right to keep and bear nuclear weapons, then neither does government.

 

[nate895]

What does proper mean in this context? Who decides whats proper and what isn't? Hasn't the necessary and proper clause of the constitution been perverted beyond all recognition? Do Swiss Army knives and nukes have free will, or are we talking about the specific actions of specific individuals.

Proper in this case would mean in a way as to not endanger the public. Nukes are dangerous things that cause massive death and destruction, there is no reason for a private citizen to use it. There might be limited scenarios where the military would need to use one in a war, but no private citizen would ever need to use it for any reason.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Any group, including government, has only the rights that the individual members of the group have. Therefore, if individuals do not have the right to keep and bear nuclear weapons, then neither does government.

Great answer! I wish I'd thought of it!

 

[sailor]

Having nukes is a relativley non-expensive way of dettering aggression.

 

[NMCB3]

Proper in this case would mean in a way as to not endanger the public. Nukes are dangerous things that cause massive death and destruction, there is no reason for a private citizen to use it. There might be limited scenarios where the military would need to use one in a war, but no private citizen would ever need to use it for any reason.

The myriad of reasons one might hold, and the value placed upon a nuke are subjective and cannot be quantified. Of course if there is no victim there is no crime. If my nuke sits in its bunker for twenty years idle, where is the victim, where is the crime? The only "crime" could be that you and the King prohibit me from having one. The crime is therefore you and the king infringing upon my rights as a human being. Congratulations, your argument is the well honed argument of the state, designed to opress and regurgitated with minor variations throughout human history.

 

[nate895]

The myriad of reasons one might hold, and the value placed upon a nuke are subjective and cannot be quantified. Of course if there is no victim there is no crime. If my nuke sits in its bunker for twenty years idle, where is the victim, where is the crime? The only "crime" could be that you and the King prohibit me from having one. The crime is therefore you and the king infringing upon my rights as a human being. Congratulations, your argument is the well honed argument of the state, designed to opress and regurgitated with minor variations throughout human history.

Yes, it is very oppressive for government to not let you own a nuke. You can own a tank and enough weapons to equip large army, but by God, you need a nuke as well.

 

[Kludge]

I'd like the government to actively work within global bodies to sign non-proliferation/dismantling acts on as many weapons/vessels possible.

As for civilians, owning a nuke would be nearly impossible. Until all nukes known to exist in the world are dismantled, it should be illegal for civilians to own them.

 

[NMCB3]

Yes, it is very oppressive for government to not let you own a nuke. You can own a tank and enough weapons to equip large army, but by God, you need a nuke as well.

I think you need to change your Barry Goldwater quote because by your own arguements "Extremism" in the defense of liberty certainly is a vice.

 

[NMCB3]

As for civilians, owning a nuke would be nearly impossible. Until all nukes known to exist in the world are dismantled, it should be illegal for civilians to own them.

Another selfless defender of liberty on the Ron Paul forums. Does this mean that after they are all dismantled you will then allow us peasants to possess them?

 

[Kludge]

Another selfless defender of liberty on the Ron Paul forums. Does this mean that after they are all dismantled you will then allow us peasants to possess them?

No, there should probably always be a law against owning nuclear weapons as a safe-guard.

 

[nate895]

I think you need to change your Barry Goldwater quote because by your own arguements "Extremism" in the defense of liberty certainly is a vice.

It isn't "extremist" to own a nuke. It's downright insane. It's not like when a gun misfires it only causes minor damage (maybe a death), a nuclear weapon would kill a whole city, and everything inside it will be lost because of some wack-job who doesn't know how to maintain it, just needed to have a nuke.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

It isn't "extremist" to own a nuke. It's downright insane. It's not like when a gun misfires it only causes minor damage (maybe a death), a nuclear weapon would kill a whole city, and everything inside it will be lost because of some wack-job who doesn't know how to maintain it, just needed to have a nuke.

So, seeing as governments are notorious for being far more irresponsible than individuals(see bank bailouts, stupid wars, and so on ad infinitum)-should the government be disallowed from "owning" nukes too?

 

[FindLiberty]

So, seeing as governments are notorious for being far more irresponsible than individuals(see bank bailouts, stupid wars, and so on ad infinitum)-should the government be disallowed from "owning" nukes too?

Go for it, say YES to not restricting nukes for the common folks! I don't think anyone will sleep any better with one under their (lead) pillow.

NIMBY Nuke discussion is a waste of time IMO. Concentrate on restoring Liberty and getting rid of the State.

Nukes are insane government killing devices, not much good for clearing stumps from the field or home defense. (Though I could see an Atlantic City Casino considering the elimination of ALL Las Vegas competition. But wait, if gambling was not prohibited, there would be no incentive to concentrate gambling in the first place. I think the threat and problems just go away without the Nanny State creating a new threat to life and liberty every minute 24x7.)

Nukes should "go away" along with government "overkill" as the US Constitution is restored. Keep in mind there are many, easier WMD options that don't require expensive maintenance or 5,000 year lethal radiation mitigation and cleanup efforts. It does not take long to regulate down to the nail file and get us right where we are now. (bring all those offshore businesses and outsourced jobs back home by eliminating the entire competing countries as we "get rid of" our nukes over their population centers???)

They are so expensive there should not be many/any non-government nukes left floating around for an individual to build/buy and "own". Except maybe Bill Gates if he wants to own a few to really go after LINUX.

Someday the technology may get to the point anyone could hot-wire their own Delorian's Mr. Fusion and poof, they' become the first on their block to be the last on their block, everybody dies. How about a "AAA plutonium battery" getting tossed in the drinking water supply by accident?

So, maybe that fusion car mfr will incorporate a breath test and sanity scan before you can drive it, or open the hood so they won't have to pay for cleanup and "loss of city" compensation damages.

I sure would not want the gubermint's unintended consequences lurking around from their SOP (failed) attempts to head off trouble and make fusion safe, 'cause the government has such a horrid track record of failures.

 

[Zavoi]

At some point the possession of weapons rises to the level of a threat against other people's lives and property. Clearly, at one extreme, a pocket knife does not qualify on this count, since there are numerous legitimate reasons why someone might have a pocket knife (among them being self-defense). On the other hand, weapons of mass destruction by their nature cannot be used for legitimate self-defense (since a large amount of collateral damage will result), and so the possession of such weapons constitutes a threat of aggression. By analogy, if I point a loaded gun at your head and promise not to shoot, then even though I have not "actually" invaded your person or property, my actions constitute a threat irrespective of my words, and you would be entitled to make me stop pointing the gun at you. I might protest and say that my intent is not to shoot but to live out my childhood dream of being a cowboy (or some other such strange reason), but no reasonable person would conclude that going so far as to point a gun at you would cause you to feel anything but fear for your life/property. So it is with nukes.

I suppose it could be argued that a nuclear bomb located in a remote area could possibly have legitimate, non-aggressive uses (e.g., an offshore oil drilling company might want to detonate a nuke to blast a hole in the ocean floor), but certainly having one in a populated area should not be allowed.

These weapons are ipso facto engines of indiscriminate mass destruction. (The only exception would be the extremely rare case where a mass of people who were all criminals inhabited a vast geographical area.) We must, therefore, conclude that the use of nuclear or similar weapons, or the threat thereof, is a sin and a crime against humanity for which there can be no justification.{Source}

 

[NMCB3]

Originally Posted by Murray N. Rothbard
These weapons are ipso facto engines of indiscriminate mass destruction. (The only exception would be the extremely rare case where a mass of people who were all criminals inhabited a vast geographical area.) We must, therefore, conclude that the use of nuclear or similar weapons, or the threat thereof, is a sin and a crime against humanity for which there can be no justification.{

I disagree with Rothbard here. This statement does not appear to follow the Non-Aggression Axiom, which is the foundation of libertarianism. Suppose I’m an eccentric collector of nuclear weapons who owns them simply for reasons of psychic value. By merely possessing them I am committing no more of an aggressive action than if I owned a cannon. There has been no aggression committed and there has been no threat made. Possession of a weapon, regardless of what the weapon is, does not constitute even an implied threat.

 

[nickcoons]

I dream of the day when government has been reduced (or eliminated, as the case may be) such that it serves no function except to protect the rights of the individual, and does so without initiating force, that we have a free market, and that freedom of association is preserved against the initiation of force or fraud; such that the only political issue we are left to resolve is whether or not the private ownership of nuclear weapons is legitimate.

 

[Andrew-Austin]

I disagree with Rothbard here. This statement does not appear to follow the Non-Aggression Axiom, which is the foundation of libertarianism. Suppose I’m an eccentric collector of nuclear weapons who owns them simply for reasons of psychic value. By merely possessing them I am committing no more of an aggressive action than if I owned a cannon. There has been no aggression committed and there has been no threat made. Possession of a weapon, regardless of what the weapon is, does not constitute even an implied threat.

Whether you have intent to use it or not, the nature of the bomb still stands as a huge threat to the entire human race and planet. There is no guarantee that the bomb may be stolen from you & or accidentally detonated. Simply owning the bomb is threatening everyone. Zavoi explained it pretty well, might as well hold a knife an inch away from someones neck and say you have no intent to cut them.

Its like saying you should be able to own a black hole generator for the sake of sentimentality, even though the potential for it to be accidentally activated and sucking the planet into oblivion exists.

 

[trey4sports]

At some point the possession of weapons rises to the level of a threat against other people's lives and property. Clearly, at one extreme, a pocket knife does not qualify on this count, since there are numerous legitimate reasons why someone might have a pocket knife (among them being self-defense). On the other hand, weapons of mass destruction by their nature cannot be used for legitimate self-defense (since a large amount of collateral damage will result), and so the possession of such weapons constitutes a threat of aggression. By analogy, if I point a loaded gun at your head and promise not to shoot, then even though I have not "actually" invaded your person or property, my actions constitute a threat irrespective of my words, and you would be entitled to make me stop pointing the gun at you. I might protest and say that my intent is not to shoot but to live out my childhood dream of being a cowboy (or some other such strange reason), but no reasonable person would conclude that going so far as to point a gun at you would cause you to feel anything but fear for your life/property. So it is with nukes.

I suppose it could be argued that a nuclear bomb located in a remote area could possibly have legitimate, non-aggressive uses (e.g., an offshore oil drilling company might want to detonate a nuke to blast a hole in the ocean floor), but certainly having one in a populated area should not be allowed.

as the OP i have to say this is my favorite answer so far

 

[sailor]

I am laying my hands on a nuke the first chance I get.

I am putting it in my basement with the pickled cucumbers and spreading the word around I will no more tolerate state infrigments on my rights!

Then let them try to tax me!