May I Have An Atom Bomb?

Political Philosophy
61

As AR stated, “a government holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force.”  As such, the govt has no “burden” to show that you only intend to use a weapon ‘defensively’.  It has no burden “to show that you intend to use the weapon to initiate force.”  Because it holds the monopoly on the use of physical force, it has the authority to restrict ownership of or use of that and any other weapon.  Why?  BECAUSE it is the possessor of the monopoly power on force.  To claim otherwise is to claim that government is NOT a possessor of such monopoly power and that others PROPERLY compete with government over the power to use force.

Now, if one understands the concept and nature of govt, the question quoted above vanishes.  If one does not, one ends up advocating the libertarian ‘competition’ over the use of force - ie anarchy.

Thanks for the reply.

First, under Objectivism it is acceptable to use force in self-defence in a situation where you are in danger and the police are not available. So the government does not have an absolute monopoly on the use of force, and it is legitimate for citizens to own weapons for self-defense.

But that was not really my point. My issue was about ownership of weapons that could potentially be used to initiate force on a mass scale, but are not actually being used that way and where there is no reason to infer that they might be, except that it can be inferred that there is no “legitimate” use for them. (which is a matter of opinion; I find firing antitank missiles quite exciting and see no reason why that should not be allowed for recreation)

The issue (for me at least) is that now we are talking about restricting personal freedom and property rights without any evidence of initiation of physical force or intent to initiate physical force. It is based purely on the potential for the initiation of physical force. The potential is not the actual, though, and restricting freedom on the basis of potential future actions does not seem valid to me.

Now I certainly would not be happy with my neighbor having nuclear weapons in his basement, but I have yet to a see a solid argument against it.

62

Except of course in a modern age where one would need a machine gun if one ever wanted to stage a rebellion with any possibility of success. There is nothing wrong with civilians owning machine guns, nuclear weapons yes, guns no.

I absolutely agree, I don’t think Machine Guns(in the wide sense of the word) are nessecary to stage a rebellion or even required for self-defense, but given the fact the fact that they are rarely used in a murder, that the bad guys could easily get one if they were banned, and that even if they couldn’t get one they could get something else and inflict the roughly the same ammoung of casulties, depriving innocent people from owning such a thing is rediculous. IMHO.

Tactical nukes can be fired basically the same way as other rockets. I am thinking of a situation in which the government has become dictatorial and the only solution is an armed rebellion. In such a case the rebels would need all the weapons they could get.

When in open rebellion one truely does need to “win the heart’s and mind’s” of the people. Nuking them would make the rebels look like terrorist and not the Liberators they are, in reality.

We didn’t win the revolution by burning Boston to the ground;)

I find firing antitank missiles quite exciting and see no reason why that should not be allowed for recreation

So do I, but the missile should be used on a big enough piece of property where they wouldn’t pose a threat to a neighbors property. These exact numbers should be determined by the range of the missile, it’s explosive yield, etc. The fact remains however that almost no one would buy an anti-tank missile. You probably couldn’t legally buy them, because the Government is the sole purchaser and may include in the contract, that the company can not sell any of these weapons to the general populace.

63

Tactical nukes can be fired basically the same way as other rockets. I am thinking of a situation in which the government has become dictatorial and the only solution is an armed rebellion. In such a case the rebels would need all the weapons they could get.

Okay, but the same question stands. Who coordinates the use of tac nukes when the government is the bad guy? Are lots of private citizens (or rebels) just going to start lobbing nukes where they think they are needed? Do you support the establishment of some organized group NOW that can head up an attack against the government later should it become tyrannical? It would seem that would be necessary in order to effectively use nukes in that manner.

VES

64

First, under Objectivism it is acceptable to use force in self-defence in a situation where you are in danger and the police are not available. So the government does not have an absolute monopoly on the use of force, and it is legitimate for citizens to own weapons for self-defense.

The first sentence is true, the second is not. You use the word “acceptable” and I take this to mean accepted by SOMEONE and, in a specific political context, sanctioned by the government. If the government finds it “acceptable” to RETURN a part of the rights delegated to it, then it still has a monopoly on that right.(based on the very fact that it is returning those rights in a certain context, if it had no monopoly it could not make a claim to begin with) This represents an alternative deduction and one that is consistent with Objectivism’s definition of government.(i.e. “true monopoly”, and namely, proper government)

It [the argument for restricting certain weapons to private individuals]is based purely on the potential for the initiation of physical force.

I do not think this is the case. Granted, there is a lengthy disagreement in this thread that is different from this point, but I do not recall anyone making such a claim. Certainly this is not an argument made by Peikoff or Rand.

Now I certainly would not be happy with my neighbor having nuclear weapons in his basement…

Based on your previous comments this is suprising. You were just speaking of legitimate uses of anti-tank missiles and “weapons that could potentially be used to initiate force on a mass scale.” Why exactly would you not be happy with a neighbor owning a WMD?

65

Vern: Some sort of organized group would be needed, but I don’t think we are at that point yet. The time to organize it would be when we were close to a serious clampdown on freedom of speech.

When in open rebellion one truely does need to “win the heart’s and mind’s” of the people. Nuking them would make the rebels look like terrorist and not the Liberators they are, in reality.

Yes, but tactical nukes are designed to be used on tank formations on open ground, not on cities. They still potentially have a legitimate use in a rebellion.

66

The first sentence is true, the second is not. You use the word “acceptable” and I take this to mean accepted by SOMEONE and, in a specific political context, sanctioned by the government. If the government finds it “acceptable” to RETURN a part of the rights delegated to it, then it still has a monopoly on that right.(based on the very fact that it is returning those rights in a certain context, if it had no monopoly it could not make a claim to begin with) This represents an alternative deduction and one that is consistent with Objectivism’s definition of government.(i.e. “true monopoly”, and namely, proper government)

No, what I mean by “acceptable” is that each individual has the right to use force to defend his rights. That right may be delegated to the government within a social context but that does not mean the individual cannot defend himself until the police arrive. Since the individual does have the right to use force in self-defense in certain situations, the government does not have a monopoly. If you want to look at as part of the rights being returned, that’s fine with me, but its still not a monopoly.

I do not think this is the case.  Granted, there is a lengthy disagreement in this thread that is different from this point, but I do not recall anyone making such a claim.  Certainly this is not an argument made by Peikoff or Rand.

Well, that’s how it appears to me. And yes this has not to my knowledge been addressed by LP or AR.

Based on your previous comments this is suprising.  You were just speaking of legitimate uses of anti-tank missiles and “weapons that could potentially be used to initiate force on a mass scale.”  Why exactly would you not be happy with a neighbor owning a WMD?

I would be concerned about him possibly using it. I am also concerned about many other potentially hazardous situations, like inexperienced teenage drivers driving around my neighborhood and possibly running me over. But my concern about potential harm does not give me the right to restrict others’ otherwise rights-respecting actions.

67

Vern: Some sort of organized group would be needed, but I don’t think we are at that point yet. The time to organize it would be when we were close to a serious clampdown on freedom of speech.

Okay, thanks for the answer.

I would still have to err (if that’s truly the case) on the side that nukes (tactical or otherwise) need not be in the hands of general public. While I’m willing to put up with the risks and hazards of gun ownership, the threat of the sheer devastating power and damage a nuke can do isn’t worth the remote potential need for homeland defense or the rebellion of domestic tyranny. In my opinion, someone would be willing to misuse them (and would do so) to make some point or statement or just simply for the purpose of committing some crime.

VES

68

Okay, thanks for the answer.

I would still have to err (if that’s truly the case) on the side that nukes (tactical or otherwise) need not be in the hands of general public.  While I’m willing to put up with the risks and hazards of gun ownership, the threat of the sheer devasting power and damage a nuke can do isn’t worth the remote potential need for homeland defense or the rebellion of domestic tyranny.  In my opinion, someone would be willing to misuse them (and would do so) to make some point or statement or just simply for the purpose of committing some crime.

VES

Plus as for guns you have to keep in mind that the Government can’t magicly zap them away. So there will always be guns and chances Joe Innocent wouldn’t be the one who had it when he needed it.

69

Yes, but tactical nukes are designed to be used on tank formations on open ground, not on cities. They still potentially have a legitimate use in a rebellion.

I do not believe tacticle nukes would be as effective as you seem to beleive. First off it would have to be used in an air burst because the radiation is it’s main killing mechinism. This means that it would have to be fired from a missle. The problem with this is that the weapon system holding the missles would be one of the first targets in any air campaign to quell the uprising, and I’m sure that the Government wether it is right for them to do so or not would keep track of such missiles. Furthermore the missiles can be taken out by Patriot Missile Batteries. So it is unlikely the missile would make it to it’s intended target. If you meen howitzers firing Tacticle Nukes I’m sure they would be tracked by the Federal Government as well.

70

I’d like to revive this topic and perhaps add something to it. First, I’d like to see what we all agree upon before we begin arguing over the disagreements.

  • I take it that private entities should be allowed to own nuclear power plants.
  • I also take it that we all agree that it is legitimate and necessary for police to stop threats. For example, in a situation where a person holds a gun to another person, it is right and incumbent upon a police officer to neutralize that person.
  • The main reason for having a right to bare arms in the Constitution was in response to the Battle of Lexington and Concord, in which British citizens (which they were, at that time) fired upon their own government in response to tyranny, achieving arguably the first rebel victory in the American Revolution. I take it that we all agree about this motive for protecting the right to bare arms, even if we disagree about the modern need for this method of securing against tyranny.
  • I take it that we all agree about some basic right of self-defense and the freedom to own some basic instruments of defense (such as, if nothing else, a knife, revolver, semi-automatic weapon, and so on).

If anybody disagrees with any of these, then we may need to take the conversation back a step. Assuming these, however, it seems to me that the right to own a weapon stems from two motives, protection against criminal citizens and a criminal government, and our means of protection against both should be minimally effective.

Citizen Criminals

To protect against a criminal citizen, all sane, law-abiding, and sui juris citizens should have the right to own any weapons which do not pose an immediate threat to those around him. I emboldened that word to highlight that it is not clearly defined, and I’m not sure how it could be. By way of example, though, a person holding a knife at ten feet is not an immediate threat because it gives most potential victims an opportunity to escape, seek help, or manage some kind of retaliatory threat if it is deemed necessary. A person holding a knife to another’s neck is an immediate threat. A person carrying a gun is not an immediate threat; a person aiming a gun at another with his finger on the trigger is an immediate threat. Perhaps somebody else could clarify exactly what is meant by “immediate”. This would rule out ownership of an armed nuclear weapon or even a disarmed nuclear weapon which could not be effectively neutralized by the government before detonation.

In any case, I believe that people who are shown to be dysfunctionally insane or violent and a threat to others has sufficiently lost the capacity to reason and should not be able to own a weapon. The only way to regulate this is by gun registration and restriction of ownership to only those with registered firearms. Likewise, somebody with a violent criminal record should not be granted a license to own a firearm, nor should somebody who is not sui juris.

Criminal Government

Still, in order to prevent against criminal governments, I believe we must have an effective means of defense. Again, the word emboldened is not perfectly clear though it should be. Again by means of example, if at least a quarter of the population is moved to violent and lethal action against the government, it should have the means of resisting the government. In America we largely have legal, democratic means of resisting our own government. And if our society comes to a point where our own democratic means do not prevent a tyranny, then the matter of defending against tyranny may be moot. For in that kind of a situation, you probably are not going to be able to rally even a quarter of the population against tyranny. Still, I wonder if some provision should be made in the event that you have a tyranny brought on by a democratic state, so that a sufficiently mobilized and militant minority will be able to resist the tyranny. This would require fully automatics, explosives, missiles, and perhaps even nuclear weapons. I’m not convinced that we should be able to own these so long as we live in a democracy, but let’s assume that we should.

Even so, we still have the provision that only sane, law-abiding, sui juris citizens should be able to own them and they should not be an immediate threat. Hence, explosives should not be kept within effective distance of others, and nuclear weapons should be highly regulated so that, if an individual tried to randomly detonate one, the government could effective neutralize it. However, if some large portion of the population attempted militant resistance, the government would not be able to effectively neutralize the resistance.

I suppose, in effect, my views on the right to bare arms is an extension of a democratic system. Most of democracy takes place within legal confines, but I suppose that when such a thing fails, there should be some kind of quasi-democratic force such that very extreme situations can be resisted by an extreme minority, which is essentially what Lexington and Concord was about.