[Pants-of-dog]

What about ethical "regulations"? Can one keep WMDs in accordance with reasonable ethical "regulations"?

What about them?

Should you not be allowed to have guns because I find them ethically objectionable?

Building on Nunt's point about the indiscriminate nature of mass effect weapons, you literally cannot activate a WMD without committing horrendous crimes. It is quite different from a discriminate weapon like say a sniper rifle. With a discriminate weapon, properly used, you could slay bad guys who deserve to die all day every day for the rest of your life and never harm a single hair on the head of an innocent person. This is functionally impossible for a WMD, using one just once inevitably means killing masses of innocents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon

Apparently you can use WMDs without killing mass numbers of innocents.

Okay you will say the point of WMDs doesn't have to be to activate them it could be just for threatening to activate them so that the bad guys don't do bad things; this is the deterrent argument. Except the threat is just a callable bluff if you don't actually have the willingness to activate them. This means there is no point to WMDs even for "defensive" purposes unless you are willing to commit crimes on a gigantic scale. Do you not think that is a relevant consideration?

So we agree that as a deterrence strategy, they can be used without actually harming anyone, as long as you convince others that you have no ethical problems about harming innocents.

[SolarCross]

What about them?

Should you not be allowed to have guns because I find them ethically objectionable?

The Amish might say so. Discriminate weapons are designed to kill / do harm but they could be used to kill in self-defence without harming innocents so it isn't quite the same thing as a WMD. Still even a libertarian anarchy might produce some law for the control of access to guns. I can easily see rulings that prohibit the criminally insane from handling guns for example. However all just law flows from self-defence so a blanket ban on the means of defence is a contradiction of the purpose of law. WMDs are a bit beyond defence though, although the deterrent argument might just sneak them into the defence justification by the skin of the teeth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon

Apparently you can use WMDs without killing mass numbers of innocents.

I am not sure tactical nukes count as WMDs though. By WMD I think we are just discussing so called strategic nuclear weapons, biological weapons and perhaps some kinds of chemical weapons and conventional explosives designed to kill (and generally used for killing) large numbers of civilians.

So we agree that as a deterrence strategy, they can be used without actually harming anyone, as long as you convince others that you have no ethical problems about harming innocents.

Yeah it is possible. I mean there is something to be said for the theory of MAD. I'm not saying that definitely a libertarian anarchy would prohibit WMDs but I can see NIMBYism pushing them to remote and sparsely populated regions which is no bad thing in itself.

[Pants-of-dog]

The Amish might say so.

We are not discussing the Amish. We are discussing libertarians.

Since we are not Amish and should not be expected to live under the ethical framework of the Amish, we can agree that ethical objections are vague at best.

Discriminate weapons are designed to kill / do harm but they could be used to kill in self-defence without harming innocents so it isn't quite the same thing as a WMD. Still even a libertarian anarchy might produce some law for the control of access to guns. I can easily see rulings that prohibit the criminally insane from handling guns for example. However all just law flows from self-defence so a blanket ban on the means of defence is a contradiction of the purpose of law. WMDs are a bit beyond defence though, although the deterrent argument might just sneak them into the defence justification by the skin of the teeth.

Again, I don't need you to explain things that I already know.

I am not sure tactical nukes count as WMDs though. By WMD I think we are just discussing so called strategic nuclear weapons, biological weapons and perhaps some kinds of chemical weapons and conventional explosives designed to kill (and generally used for killing) large numbers of civilians.

Again, any weapon can be used to harm innocents, and I am not actually harming any innocents by storing and aiming a WMD.

Yeah it is possible. I mean there is something to be said for the theory of MAD. I'm not saying that definitely a libertarian anarchy would prohibit WMDs but I can see NIMBYism pushing them to remote and sparsely populated regions which is no bad thing in itself.

That's nice.

I asked if you had any real rational reason to believe that having the mercs as your neighbour will actually be a significant risk to you.

You have yet to answer this question, despite having been asked several times. I will assume that you have no real rational reason to believe that having the mercs as your neighbour will actually be a significant risk to you.

[SolarCross]

We are not discussing the Amish. We are discussing libertarians.

Since we are not Amish and should not be expected to live under the ethical framework of the Amish, we can agree that ethical objections are vague at best.

Right but see there is nothing that I can think of that makes the Amish philosophy incompatible with libertarianism. They do substantially live by the NAP and that is the main thing really. Ethical objections are very much the point of just law is it not? Ethics are variable we all differ somewhat in our sensitivities but ethical considerations are not vague. There is nothing vague about ethical objections to weapons designed to kill millions of people.

Again, any weapon can be used to harm innocents, and I am not actually harming any innocents by storing and aiming a WMD.

By storing and aiming nukes you are not harming anyone physically but you might still be harming their peace of mind. If I followed you around with a pistol pointed at your head, I could quite sincerely say that I am not harming you physically, but could I truthfully claim that I am not harming your peace of mind? Would you think that you had a right to object to me doing that, even physically prevent me doing that?

I asked if you had any real rational reason to believe that having the mercs as your neighbour will actually be a significant risk to you.

You have yet to answer this question, despite having been asked several times. I will assume that you have no real rational reason to believe that having the mercs as your neighbour will actually be a significant risk to you.

I thought I had. I'll repeat myself. A case could be made that the presence of nuclear silos increases substantially the risk of the surrounding area being subjected to a pre-emptive or retaliatory nuclear strike.

[Pants-of-dog]

Right but see there is nothing that I can think of that makes the Amish philosophy incompatible with libertarianism. They do substantially live by the NAP and that is the main thing really. Ethical objections are very much the point of just law is it not? Ethics are variable we all differ somewhat in our sensitivities but ethical considerations are not vague. There is nothing vague about ethical objections to weapons designed to kill millions of people.

Then explain what these ethical objections are and how they relate to the topic.

By storing and aiming nukes you are not harming anyone physically but you might still be harming their peace of mind. If I followed you around with a pistol pointed at your head, I could quite sincerely say that I am not harming you physically, but could I truthfully claim that I am not harming your peace of mind? Would you think that you had a right to object to me doing that, even physically prevent me doing that?

I'm not aiming my nukes at you.

I thought I had. I'll repeat myself. A case could be made that the presence of nuclear silos increases substantially the risk of the surrounding area being subjected to a pre-emptive or retaliatory nuclear strike.

And I pointed out that this risk is equal to the risk of anyone living in a large city during the Cold War. In other words, it is almost nothing. So your case sucks.

-----------------------------

Would you consider me a libertarian?

[Rich]

How high and how low is your property under Libertarianism. Because lets face it even if not that many people choose to have nuclear weapons. Quite a lot are going to have air defence systems.

You only have to look a the furore around Heathrow. Imagine if there was no central government, the only question is how long would it take for open warfare to break out days or hours?

[mum]

A WMD that can blow up and kill people nearby would be obviously a threat and therefore not allowed.
A WMD that is say in a silo and aimed at say rogue nations and is safe for the local area may be allowed. It may pose the risk of being considered a threat to wherever it is pointed and so that could be a risk in itself.
A WMD if it malfunctioned and exploded poses a significant risk to neighbours, at quite a distance away. Firearms do not pose such a risk, however a very large store of ammunition could pose a similiar risk although probably much smaller in area of effect (similar to hazardous chemical plants)

[Rich]

A WMD that can blow up and kill people nearby would be obviously a threat and therefore not allowed.

And whose going to stop them? A large rich land owner can import non local labour and get them to sign NDA's. If some disgruntled ex worker blows the story, no one will have any right to go and investigate his claims because as we all know under Libertarianism property is sacrosanct.

[SolarCross]

Would you consider me a libertarian?

I consider you to be a libertine.

How high and how low is your property under Libertarianism.

That is an interesting question. By property of course you are talking specifically about land or space as property. I think as a fuzzy rule of thumb you can claim exclusive use of the airspace (& underground space) only as far is reasonable for the purposes of your ownership. So for a building used for residential purposes you couldn't claim the airspace that is over it all the way up to the stratosphere. If the purpose of the property was for use as an airport you could claim the airspace over it to a much higher extent (though still short of the stratosphere) because for the purposes of your airport you would need to have control over the airspace to quite a high altitude in order to properly and safely manage the air traffic using the airport. As ever where disputes happen over the extents of ownership, courts will be the ultimate resolver.

Because lets face it even if not that many people choose to have nuclear weapons. Quite a lot are going to have air defence systems.

I am not so sure they will, people do not generally buy things just because they can, they buy things to serve some useful purpose. So whether air defences proliferate or not will depend on how threatened people feel about hostile military air power. If the US gov or other enthusiastic bomber of civilians starts rattling the sabres of war in the faces of Libertopians then very likely hawkers of air defence systems will do a roaring trade. Otherwise I don't see it that likely that many people will go to the trouble and expense. Moreover no one is immune from prosecution for the harm they do, so even having an air defence system of some sort is not a licence to kill.

You only have to look a the furore around Heathrow. Imagine if there was no central government, the only question is how long would it take for open warfare to break out days or hours?

Yet the overwhelming number of wars historically are between one government and another or civil wars between different people aiming to impose a government over the other.

[mum]

And whose going to stop them? A large rich land owner can import non local labour and get them to sign NDA's. If some disgruntled ex worker blows the story, no one will have any right to go and investigate his claims because as we all know under Libertarianism property is sacrosanct.

Well if they don't know and nothing happens then there is no perceived threat is there ?
If the people find out then that's what investigators are for, to find evidence. Do you think this could actually happen in secret? Absurd.

This is a ridiculous argument anyway. Is there one singe example of an individual who has obtained wealth through voluntary means ever having purchased such a dangerous weapon ?
Who are the richest (by voluntary or mostly voluntary means) guys in the world now? Bill Gates ? He spends a lot of money on vaccinations for 3rd world countries.... Dr Evil? oh wait, he is a fictional character...

[mum]

This

Yet the overwhelming number of wars historically are between one government and another or civil wars between different people aiming to impose a government over the other.

Wars are very expensive. Generally individuals don't care to fight because aside from morals it is far too expensive, and often doesn't result in decent returns. The risk reward ratio is absurd.

Thats why individuals trade with their own resources. It is governments that wage war with everyone's resources

[Pants-of-dog]

A WMD that can blow up and kill people nearby would be obviously a threat and therefore not allowed.

So, one that is safely stored and maintained is not a problem.

A WMD that is say in a silo and aimed at say rogue nations and is safe for the local area may be allowed. It may pose the risk of being considered a threat to wherever it is pointed and so that could be a risk in itself.

The whole point of a weapon is to pose a threat to whomever it has been pointed at.

A WMD if it malfunctioned and exploded poses a significant risk to neighbours, at quite a distance away. Firearms do not pose such a risk, however a very large store of ammunition could pose a similiar risk although probably much smaller in area of effect (similar to hazardous chemical plants)

And so we could have WMDs as long as they comply with those regulations that ensure that it does not accidentally blow up or otherwise pose a risk to neighbours.

-----------------

I consider you to be a libertine.

Not anymore. Not as young as I used to be. But enough about my sex life.

Since you do not consider me a libertarian, why do you consider yourself one? i ask this because I seem to be more supportive of individual liberties than you about certain things.

Back to the topic:

You have yet to explain what the ethical objections are to my owning a WMD and how they relate to the topic.

Nor have you responded to my point that the risk of being targetted by the enemy of the WMD owner is equal to the risk of anyone living in a large city during the Cold War.

---------------------

Thats why individuals trade with their own resources. It is governments that wage war with everyone's resources

Except when corporations work hand in hand with the gov't to get rid of leftists. Like in Latin America during the Cold War, when US-supported right wing dictatorships killed union leaders.

A Latin American leftist in that scenario would be happy to have a WMD to aim at the gov't.

[SolarCross]

Not anymore. Not as young as I used to be. But enough about my sex life.

Since you do not consider me a libertarian, why do you consider yourself one? i ask this because I seem to be more supportive of individual liberties than you about certain things.

Well of course I meant libertine in the general sense:-

A libertine is one devoid of most moral restraints, which are seen as unnecessary or undesirable, especially one who ignores or even spurns accepted morals and forms of behaviour sanctified by the larger society.

I do because I accept the NAP to be a good and desirable foundation for liberty and general moral conduct and also as a tactical foundation for a happy and productive existence. I strive for my own liberty yet also hold respect for the liberty of others. Thus I place some limits on my own freedom. Liberty as opposed to absolute freedom is a quid pro quo.

Back to the topic:

You have yet to explain what the ethical objections are to my owning a WMD and how they relate to the topic.

Nor have you responded to my point that the risk of being targetted by the enemy of the WMD owner is equal to the risk of anyone living in a large city during the Cold War.

Well I think I have answered both questions. Moreover I don't deny that it is quite possible that the case for the lawful ownership of WMDs could be successfully made even in a libertarian society but I just don't believe it is very likely it could be done extra-judicially. If one can take someone to court for following one around in a creepy way what makes you think one couldn't take someone to court over hosting WMDs? Going to court is part of the cost of doing business even for people engaged in exceedingly uncontroversial and patently benign activities. The other thing is international law, a libertarian society as an open society is likely to be in its own eccentric way somewhat open to cases made by "foreign" organisations even using "foreign" law and there are ruling already in international law against WMDs, many governments may ignore these rulings but it is not really clear that any mercenary unit could safely ignore them.

[Pants-of-dog]

Well of course I meant libertine in the general sense:-

A libertine is one devoid of most moral restraints, which are seen as unnecessary or undesirable, especially one who ignores or even spurns accepted morals and forms of behaviour sanctified by the larger society.

I see. You didn't get the "sex life" joke.

Moving on.

I do because I accept the NAP to be a good and desirable foundation for liberty and general moral conduct and also as a tactical foundation for a happy and productive existence. I strive for my own liberty yet also hold respect for the liberty of others. Thus I place some limits on my own freedom. Liberty as opposed to absolute freedom is a quid pro quo.

Except you do not extend the NAP to pregnant women and nuclear weapon owners.

Well I think I have answered both questions.

You haven't. If you have, you could go back and link to your answer.

Moreover I don't deny that it is quite possible that the case for the lawful ownership of WMDs could be successfully made even in a libertarian society but I just don't believe it is very likely it could be done extra-judicially. If one can take someone to court for following one around in a creepy way what makes you think one couldn't take someone to court over hosting WMDs?

Because you usually need a rational reason to take someone to court. If I tried to take you to court because my dog told me that you were trying to take my over brain with alien technology, or some other incredibly crazy reason, I would fail.

Why is your argument (whatever that is) more reasonable than my incredibly crazy one?

Going to court is part of the cost of doing business even for people engaged in exceedingly uncontroversial and patently benign activities. The other thing is international law: a libertarian society (as an open society) is likely to be (in its own eccentric way) somewhat open to cases made by "foreign" organisations, even using "foreign" law, and there are already rulings in international law against WMDs. Many governments may ignore these rulings, but it is not really clear that any mercenary unit could safely ignore them.

Can you give me an example of such a law?

[SolarCross]

Except you do not extend the NAP to pregnant women and nuclear weapon owners.

It is a matter of interpretation.

Can you give me an example of such a law?

I found this so far. It is an advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons made by the International Court of Justice. The most signficant part is this:-

E. By seven votes to seven, by the President's casting vote,

It follows from the above-mentioned requirements that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law;

However, in view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake;

IN FAVOUR: President Bedjaoui; Judges Ranjeva, Herczegh, Shi, Fleischhauer, Vereshchetin, Ferrari Bravo;

AGAINST: Vice-President Schwebel; Judges Oda, Guillaume, Shahabuddeen, Weeramantry, Koroma, Higgins.

Not an entirely firm ruling, for sure, but it isn't without implications for our enterprising mercs intending to make a business out the threat of nuclear weapons.

In all seriousness what are the chances that libertopia will be populated entirely by fanatical gun nuts who wouldn't dream of complaining even about WMDs on their doorstep lest their own conventional arsenals be called into question too further down the line. It is practically inevitable that some portion of the population will be sandal wearing, tofu eating peacenik hipsters, do you seriously think they won't make a complaint? What of big international charities like Greenpeace? You think they won't challenge our mercs?

[Pants-of-dog]

It is a matter of interpretation.

You want to force women to use their bodies to provide life support for some other person. In other words, you want to use their property (i.e. their bodies) without their consent. How is this consistent with the NAP?

You want to interfere with someone's ownership and use of a tool, even though said ownership and use does not harm you or risk harming you. How is this consistent with the NAP?

I found this so far. It is an advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons made by the International Court of Justice. The most signficant part is this:-

E. By seven votes to seven, by the President's casting vote,

It follows from the above-mentioned requirements that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law;

However, in view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake;

IN FAVOUR: President Bedjaoui; Judges Ranjeva, Herczegh, Shi, Fleischhauer, Vereshchetin, Ferrari Bravo;

AGAINST: Vice-President Schwebel; Judges Oda, Guillaume, Shahabuddeen, Weeramantry, Koroma, Higgins.

Not an entirely firm ruling, for sure, but it isn't without implications for our enterprising mercs intending to make a business out the threat of nuclear weapons.

And how would this apply in Galt's Gulch/Libertopia/beyond the Probability Broach?

In all seriousness what are the chances that libertopia will be populated entirely by fanatical gun nuts who wouldn't dream of complaining even about WMDs on their doorstep lest their own conventional arsenals be called into question too further down the line. It is practically inevitable that some portion of the population will be sandal wearing, tofu eating peacenik hipsters, do you seriously think they won't make a complaint? What of big international charities like Greenpeace? You think they won't challenge our mercs?

They can want to challenge the mercs, but since they have no rational reason for even taking them to court, how will they?

[SolarCross]

[Eran]

You want to force women to use their bodies to provide life support for some other person. In other words, you want to use their property (i.e. their bodies) without their consent. How is this consistent with the NAP?

It isn't, really. The NAP would require that the fetus be extracted alive, if possible. But even if the fetus is considered human, and the consequence of abortion is its death, it would be illegitimate to force the woman to serve the interests of another with her property (body).

You want to interfere with someone's ownership and use of a tool, even though said ownership and use does not harm you or risk harming you. How is this consistent with the NAP?

The "risk" part. WMD's, by their very nature, are incapable of accurate, defensive application. By their very nature they risk the lives and property of innocents. Consequently, it can be plausible argue that they cannot form part of a "peaceful project" whose violation using physical force is what the NAP prohibits.

The NAP, properly understood, prohibits the initiation of force against another person or their ongoing peaceful projects. In some cases, the application of the NAP would require human judgement and reference to community practices. But just because some lines are fuzzy (nuclear weapons aren't "peaceful", but what about cluster bombs?) it doesn't mean no lines exist (smoking Marijuana is peaceful under any reasonable interpretation).

Of course all legal systems have fuzzy lines requiring human judgements. Nothing new here.

[Pants-of-dog]

It isn't, really. The NAP would require that the fetus be extracted alive, if possible. But even if the fetus is considered human, and the consequence of abortion is its death, it would be illegitimate to force the woman to serve the interests of another with her property (body).

Thank you, Eran, I completely agree.

The "risk" part. WMD's, by their very nature, are incapable of accurate, defensive application. By their very nature they risk the lives and property of innocents. Consequently, it can be plausible argue that they cannot form part of a "peaceful project" whose violation using physical force is what the NAP prohibits.

The NAP, properly understood, prohibits the initiation of force against another person or their ongoing peaceful projects. In some cases, the application of the NAP would require human judgement and reference to community practices. But just because some lines are fuzzy (nuclear weapons aren't "peaceful", but what about cluster bombs?) it doesn't mean no lines exist (smoking Marijuana is peaceful under any reasonable interpretation).

Of course all legal systems have fuzzy lines requiring human judgements. Nothing new here.

And if the WMDs are not being used except as a system of détente, how are they not peaceful?

[Eran]

That really depends. But the NAP prohibits not just the "use of force", but also the "threat of the use of force" against innocents.

It isn't legitimate to threaten harming innocents even if the hope is that the threat is never realised.