Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

World Ban on Nuclear Weapons

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

A worldwide agreement to not allow the development of nuclear weapons is a violation of the rights of the individual, as far as I know. The ownership of this property does not violate the rights of others, only actions taken involving it has that possibility. That's how it is with any other piece of property, or is there a difference with nuclear explosives? If there in no restriction in being able to develop nuclear explosives, this puts the entire surrounding area in extreme danger, either from personal property explosions or from foreign attacks. Basically, what does a gov't who never initiates force do to prevent something like this to occur?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your question is whether the government should ban private individuals from possessing nuclear weapons, the answer is yes. A person who owned such a weapon would be implicitly issuing a death threat to everyone in the area (thereby initiating force against them).

If your question is whether governments should agree among themselves to not build nuclear weapons, the answer is no. However, a legitimate government may properly attempt to prevent its enemies from getting nuclear weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your question is whether the government should ban private individuals from possessing nuclear weapons, the answer is yes. A person who owned such a weapon would be implicitly issuing a death threat to everyone in the area (thereby initiating force against them).

Exactly. Just like pointing a gun at someone is wrong, even if you dont mean to use that gun. Having a nuclear weapon in your house, in the middle of the city, is the same thing as if you would have several gun turrets pointing out of your window aimed at everyone and everything in your neighborhood. It doesnt matter whether you are meaning to use them or not, it is still an initiation of force. Its not the same thing as having a handgun in your drawer, that you use in emergency situations.

If your question is whether governments should agree among themselves to not build nuclear weapons, the answer is no. However, a legitimate government may properly attempt to prevent its enemies from getting nuclear weapons.

I bolded the important words, that seem to go unnoticed by the public at large, at least here in europe, where evil-loving and good-hating is at its peak. I hate people, who say stuff like "why is america allowed to have a nuke but Iran isnt?". Its like saying, "why should the police be allowed to have guns, if a criminal threatening the lives of others cant?". For some reason most people understand this in the sense of individuals, but for some reason they go all "relativist" when its about nations. Its like the fact that they are nations, and that the UN has accepted them as members, make them by themselves somehow legitimate......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here we go... again!

This time I've learned my lesson. :D

The right to property is a RIGHT, it does not require the sanction of government, your neighbours or the man on the moon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A worldwide agreement to not allow the development of nuclear weapons is a violation of the rights of the individual, as far as I know.

When I think of a "world ban on nuclear weapons" I think of a ban that prohibits governments from owning them. I think that is a bad idea because the sole proper purpose of a government is to defend its people from the initiation of force, and a government should be able to do that using whatever means are necessary, including, if it comes to it, nuclear.

I would support a ban on improper governments owning nuclear weapons, because they would use them to intimidate innocent people. A government that uses its weapons to intimidate innocent people should lose not only its right to possess weapons, but its right to exist.

I would support a ban on individuals owning nuclear weapons; but on nuclear explosives other than weapons I don't think I can support an outright ban. Nuclear explosives can be used for mining, propulsion, or energy production. They are dangerous, and I think there should be laws governing their handling and storage, just as there are laws governing the handling and storage of other types of explosives. But an outright ban can, and already does, rule out useful industry.

An individual has the right to defend himself, but he delegates that right to the government. He retains the ability to own small arms to defend himself in cases before the police can arrive. But if he were attacked in any sort of way where his defense would require a nuclear weapon, I'm sure a proper government would already be able and willing to defend him.

I doubt that allowing privately owned nuclear weapons would help to deter a government from infringing the rights of its own citizens. Bigger weapons only serve to make such situations more destructive. When it comes right down to it, it is bad philosophy that causes governments to infringe the rights of their own citizens, and a government under the influence of bad philosophy will use whatever force is necessary to infringe rights if it thinks they should be infringed. To paraphrase Ayn Rand, a nuclear weapon is not an argument. Only a proper philosophy can defend individuals from their own government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A worldwide agreement to not allow the development of nuclear weapons is a violation of the rights of the individual, as far as I know.
As far as I know it is not, first because it does not affect the individual, and second because individuals do not have an absolute right to initiate force against others by threatening to vaporise them. If you have in mind something more specific where you think an individual's actions are affected, you could make the case. But since there is no such thing as Worldgov, it won't be worldwide. I don't even think the EU has gotten that degree of direct control over the European individual.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well what if mining by nuclear explosives became a lucrative trade?

Quiet! This can't go public until I finish developing my new breed of radioactive men! :D

Seriously, mining with nukes, anywhere, would be like setting off several sticks of dynamite in a house to get rid of rats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...