Czy broń masowego rażenia powinna być ogólnodostępna?

[woolybully]

Wystarczy popatrzeć na np. Timothy McVeigh'a . Każdy "tempy chuj" tak na prawdę posiada BMR. Czy to będzie fugas, butla z gazem czy głupie nawozy rolnicze. Dlaczego ludzie tego nie wykorzystują? Według mnie jest identycznie jak w przypadku broni palnej.

 

[woolybully]

Broni palnej w sensie- "wszyscy będą mieli to się od razu po zapierdalają"

 

[Mad.lock]

BMR przekracza próg akceptowalnego ryzyka większości ludzi.

Ile osób, godzących się na wolny rynek leków, informacji, edukacji, broni konwencjonalnej, religii, seksu itd., którym nawet na myśl nie przychodzą pomysły typu regulacja gospodarki, cła czy tworzenie czeboli, a jednocześnie odrzucających całkowicie libertarianizm, nie mających zamiaru głosować na żadną partię wolnościową, znasz?

 

[GAZDA]

@inho, o co ci właściwie chodzi komuchu? chcesz wolnych ludzi przekonywać do tego że ktoś ino (pewnie ty i inne komuchy w stworzonym do tych celów urzędzie) może decydować kto może mieć bmr, bedzie definiowac czym jest bmr czy może nikt poza tym urzędem nie bedzie mógł mieć???
idź se kurwa ze swoimi komuszymi pomysłami na jakieś komusze forum...
nikogo tutaj nie interesuje że ty chcesz coś tam regulować, mozesz se regulować na swoim i tyle...
możesz se reformować to twoje państwo i przekonywać tych co sie w to twoje państwo bawią, ale odpierdol sie od normalnych ludzi i od tego co robią na swoim...

 

[Caleb]

Od 3 stron widać, że @inho jest zamordystycznym trollem, albo pomylił fora.

 

[pampalini]

Jeszcze jedna rzecz mi przyszła do głowy.

Bomby atomowe, oczywiście, zawsze będą drogie, bo zwyczajnie skonstruowanie ich dużo kosztuje, więc "legalizacja" niewiele tu zmieni. I tak będzie na nią stać jedynie garstkę najbogatszych. Prawdopodobieństwo, że ktoś będzie na tyle trzeźwo rozumował, żeby zbić fortunę, a jednocześnie okaże się psychopatą z żądzą zniszczenia, nie jest oczywiście zerowe, ale z pewnością bardzo małe. Tyle że dzisiaj tak samo prezesi wielkich korpo mogą przekupić państwa, żeby przymknęły oczy, albo nawet bezpośrednio u nich zamówić bombę.

Nie da się jednak przewidzieć, z jakimi bombami masowego rażenia możemy mieć do czynienia jutro. Być może naukowcy skonstruują relatywnie tanie i śmiercionośne ładunki wybuchowe. Tyle że znowu - to państwa mają najwięcej środków finansowych, największą motywację i najbogatsze możliwości propagandowe, żeby skłonić poważnych fizyków, chemików czy biologów do poświęcenia całego swojego życia pracy nad skuteczniejszymi i tańszymi narzędziami masowego mordu.

 

[inho]

Nie chce mi się na każdy post odpowiadać osobno, więc jako komuch sięgnę sobie tylko na półkę do klasyków komunizmu - w kolejności: Lenin i Stalin:

The libertarian's basic attitude toward war must then be: it is legitimate to use violence against criminals in defense of one's rights of person and property; it is completely impermissible to violate the rights of other innocent people. War, then, is only proper when the exercise of violence is rigorously limited to the individual criminals. We may judge for ourselves how many wars or conflicts in history have met this criterion.

It has often been maintained, and especially by conservatives, that the development of the horrendous modern weapons of mass murder (nuclear weapons, rockets, germ warfare, etc.) is only a difference of degree rather than kind from the simpler weapons of an earlier era. Of course, one answer to this is that when the degree is the number of human lives, the difference is a very big one. But another answer that the libertarian is particularly equipped to give is that while the bow and arrow and even the rifle can be pinpointed, if the will be there, against actual criminals, modern nuclear weapons cannot. Here is a crucial difference in kind. Of course, the bow and arrow could be used for aggressive purposes, but it could also be pinpointed to use only against aggressors. Nuclear weapons, even "conventional" aerial bombs, cannot be. 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.

This is why the old cliché no longer holds that it is not the arms but the will to use them that is significant in judging matters of war and peace. For it is precisely the characteristic of modern weapons that they cannot be used selectively, cannot be used in a libertarian manner. Therefore, their very existence must be condemned, and nuclear disarmament becomes a good to be pursued for its own sake. And if we will indeed use our strategic intelligence, we will see that such disarmament is not only a good, but the highest political good that we can pursue in the modern world. For just as murder is a more heinous crime against another man than larceny, so mass murder – indeed murder so widespread as to threaten human civilization and human survival itself – is the worst crime that any man could possibly commit. And that crime is now imminent. And the forestalling of massive annihilation is far more important, in truth, than the demunicipalization of garbage disposal, as worthwhile as that may be. Or are libertarians going to wax properly indignant about price control or the income tax, and yet shrug their shoulders at or even positively advocate the ultimate crime of mass murder?

What is the libertarian position on the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution? At first blush, this philosophy is not compatible with any gun control legislation at all, since the mere ownership and possession of a rifle or pistol do not constitute an uninvited border crossing, or invasive violence. Nor do they even amount to a threat, for surely we must distinguish between the case of brandishing a weapon in a bellicose manner, on the one hand, and, on the other, with keeping one locked up in a drawer at home or in an auto, or with peaceably walking around with one safely holstered at the hip or even concealed, as in a shoulder harness. The former act violates the nonaggression axiom, while the latter two do not. Yes, there is a potential danger involved in private gun ownership and use, but if we were to prohibit all such occurrences, we would have to ban autos, knives, scissors, letter openers, arms (for boxers) and legs (for karatekas), etc.
Then there is the slippery slope objection; that if a pistol is not a rights violator per se, then neither is a rifle, a machine gun, a bazooka, a howitzer, a tank, a battleship, a jet fighter plane; nor, for that matter, a nuclear bomb. The libertarian response to this is predicated upon the issue of whether it is possible to use these weapons in a purely defensive manner; if so, there can be no objection to them per se. Consider a bazooka, for example. Can the power of this implement be confined to those at whom it is aimed? Yes. Therefore it can be used purely for purposes of self-defense, and its possession is not an ipso facto violation of the libertarian code. If it is not possible to limit, to its intended targets, the physical harm created by a weapon but, rather, this must necessarily spill over onto innocent parties, then such an implement must be eliminated from legitimate arsenals. When viewed in this manner, it is clear that all of the weapons mentioned above, except for the thermonuclear device, do allow for pinpointing, namely for confining their destructive power to the “bad guys.” Therefore, it would be licit to own any of the former, but not the latter.
This, then, is a fair summary of the consensus libertarian position on gun control, as it now exists. However, it is subject to criticism, when we take a wider perspective. Contemplate the possibility of meteors causing great damage to the Earth, and being blown up, defensively, by nuclear power, as in the movie Armageddon, or alien creatures attacking us, as in the book by Robert Heinlein (1959), Starship Troopers, and the movie of the same name. In this astronomical context, not limited to the Earth, the hydrogen bomb, or even many of them all together, can be used purely defensively, or appropriately, e.g., to blow up a meteor before it hits us, or to kill giant enemy alien bugs on distant planets, who have already attacked us.
What, then, is the libertarian response to the critic who offers the specter of the nuclear weapon in someone’s basement, located in the midst of a large city? This attempt at a reductio ad absurdum could perhaps have been defeated when the context was limited to the Earth; here, at least by supposition, it is impossible to detonate an atom bomb without violating the rights of at least one other person.
However, where extraterrestrial beings or meteors are concerned, the hydrogen bomb cannot be banned as intrinsically invasive. Now, it has, or at least can have, a defensive purpose. However, the idea of a Jeff Dahmer or a Ted Kaczynski in charge of one in a large city must give even a fanatical libertarian pause for thought. This is even more problematic given that the ability and knowledge needed for constructing these items are widely dispersed, and the cost of the raw materials, while expensive, is not prohibitive. One possible answer to this conundrum is that the libertarian stance (nukes are prohibited because they are necessarily invasive) is quite sufficient for any reasonable scenario concerning the Earth; that meteors and unfriendly bug-eyed aliens, etc. are the stuff of science fiction, not reality; and that libertarianism can only concern itself with the former, not the latter. This perspective offers the following possible response:

If the Earth were such a place as to be repeatedly threatened with meteors, our principles governing the legitimacy of nuclear weapons would be quite different. In our world, the view that such bombs are necessarily invasive, and hence should be prohibited, is the strongest. In another universe, it might be weaker. Another way of putting this point is that in the hypothetical world of Armageddon a nuclear weapon is not entirely and wholly offensive but serves a legitimate role in (planetary) self-defense.

The difficulty with this reply is that, at least ideally, libertarianism ought to be applicable as widely as possible: to all times, and to all places; to all possible universes. To the extent that this is not the case, this philosophy has less generalizability, and hence less validity than otherwise.
Fortunately, however, there is a better defense available. The only way the nuclear bomb can be used defensively is for off-world activity. Therefore, at the very least, the would-be stockpiler of this weapon must have at his disposal the wherewithal to launch it at an enemy planet or on-rushing meteor. Since rocketry of this sort costs billions of dollars, this consideration ought to be sufficient to preclude the specter of a nuclear device in numerous basements or attics.
Let us reiterate. Libertarianism is in opposition to the prohibition of ordinary weapons since they do not per se violate its basic premise of nonaggression. When we focus only on earthly concerns, this philosophy favors the ban on nuclear weapons; since it is not possible to confine their force, their use must necessarily violate the libertarian axiom. However, when we incorporate the entire universe into our analysis, and science fiction considerations as well, then nukes cannot be banned, since a defensive purpose for them exists.

[...]

Jako komuch popieram całkowicie powyższe tezy.

 

[Rebel]

Dwie rzeczy:
1 Takie coś jak bomba atomowa powstała tylko dzięki państwu. Można sobie wyobrazić ile jeszcze pojebanych rzeczy państwa sa w stanie wymeśleć.
2 Piszesz o szaleńcu posiadającym broń atomową. Ja znam takiego jednego co siedzi w Korei gdzie jego ludzie z głodu wykopują trupy. On dzisiaj ma broń jąrdową. Są jeszcze generałowie w różnych miejscach którzy są nauczeni patrzeć na wojnę na zasadzie liczb, na ludnośc wrogiego państwa podobnie.

 

[Deleted member 4476]

Tak mi przyszło na myśl
Załóżmy, że w kraju posiadającym BMR wygrywa odpowiednik polskiej Partii Libertariańskiej, która głosi uwłaszczenie. Ktoś dostałby bomby ?
Problem kosztowności bomby atomowej rozwiązany.

 

[Alu]

Bomby by dostał ten, kto by najwięcej zapłacił.

 

[pampalini]

Załóżmy, że w kraju posiadającym BMR wygrywa odpowiednik polskiej Partii Libertariańskiej, która głosi uwłaszczenie. Ktoś dostałby bomby ?

Przerobiłoby się na krasnale ogrodowe i rozdało egalitarnie.

 

[FatBantha]

Konsekwentnie niezdyscyplinowane wobec jakichś centralizmów społeczeństwo - to trochę jak jednorożec - za przeproszeniem - srający tęczą w idealnym, teoretycznym świecie - Nibylandii... BMR przekracza próg akceptowalnego ryzyka większości ludzi.

A jedzenie mięsa - próg akceptowalności dla wegetarian. I co, miałbym z tego powodu równać w ich stronę? Konsekwentnie niezdyscyplinowanie wobec centralizmów jest możliwe, gdy ludzie spróbują czy tym bardziej przyzwyczają się do tego, że sami stanowią gdzieś władzę, mają wpływ na świat, zachowują owoce swojej pracy dla siebie, wiążąc to wszystko ze swoją godnością, nie chcąc tego oddawać. Wystarczy, że wytworzy się kultura realizująca te wartości - rezygnacja z nich będzie wiązała się z takim samym poczuciem niedopuszczalności, jak jest dziś często w odwrotnych przypadkach - nieposłuszeństwa wobec autorytetu.

Jeżeli tak, to nie ma również żadnego sposobu wyegzekwowania czegokolwiek - łącznie z aksjomatami.

Rozwiń myśl.

Odpowiedziałaby większość pozostałych ludzi dalej zagrożonych. Wyjrzyj za okno jak ludzie grzecznie podporządkowują się w celu zmniejszenia "ryzyka socjalnego".

Wychowywali się w takich warunkach, to nic dziwnego, że grzecznie się podporządkowują. Niczego innego nie znają. Dają się terroryzować, to są terroryzowani. Dlatego właśnie władza centralna istnieje, jest efektem takiego właśnie wychowania. To co jest za oknem nie może być zatem całościowym dowodem dla tez o zachowaniu społeczeństwa wyznającego inne wartości. Jeśli wyznawałoby dokładnie te wartości co dziś, jego rzeczywistość za oknem wyglądałaby dokładnie tak samo jak nasza.

To nie jest kwestia umiejętności tylko pragmatyzmu i rozsądku. Taki postulat jest przeciwskuteczny.

Dlatego ta kwestia nie powinna być podnoszona, gdy chcesz przekonywać masy i powinieneś ją przemilczeć. Ja nie jestem tym zainteresowany, wykuwam sobie z implikacji pewnych założeń całościowy obraz prywatnej ortodoksji, wynikający z interpretacji tychże. Nie mam zamiaru Cię do niczego przekonywać, więc nie muszę się liczyć z tym, czy coś jest skuteczne, czy nie. Jeżeli celem jest kompleksowe zlikwidowanie instytucji niedobrowolnie sprawujących kontrolę nad ludźmi, należy uznać, że postulat regulowania dostępności czegokolwiek innymi środkami niż przez wolny rynek się z tym kłóci. Taki postulat implikuje konieczność centralizacji władzy, która będzie mogła dosięgnąć każdego, unieważniając transfery uprawnień na przykład środków promieniotwórczych, a może w ogóle powstające oddolnie tytuły własności w ich wypadku [na przykład w wyniku pierwotnego zawłaszczenia].

It has often been maintained, and especially by conservatives, that the development of the horrendous modern weapons of mass murder (nuclear weapons, rockets, germ warfare, etc.) is only a difference of degree rather than kind from the simpler weapons of an earlier era. Of course, one answer to this is that when the degree is the number of human lives, the difference is a very big one. But another answer that the libertarian is particularly equipped to give is that while the bow and arrow and even the rifle can be pinpointed, if the will be there, against actual criminals, modern nuclear weapons cannot. Here is a crucial difference in kind. Of course, the bow and arrow could be used for aggressive purposes, but it could also be pinpointed to use only against aggressors. Nuclear weapons, even "conventional" aerial bombs, cannot be. 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.

No więc skoro możliwe jest, by użyć BMR tylko przeciw kryminalistom, na przykład zbierając ich na jakimś prywatnym atolu i ich nuke'ując, może być także pinpointed jak łuk czy karabin i to tylko difference of degree pinpointingu. Jakaś broń strzelająca energetycznymi obręczami rozbiegającymi się w formie pierścienia jak czar nova z pierwszego diablo, o ograniczonym zasięgu też byłaby niekoszerna? Tymczasem w przypadku gdy jest się otoczonym przez agresorów, jest ona w sam raz, bo nie trzeba celować.

Przez takie idiotyczne, wymyślone z dupy dodatkowe kryteria, że broń którą nie da się celować jest sprzeczna z NAP, libertarianie wcielają się w rolę talmudystów. Samo istnienie jakiejkolwiek broni nie jest żadnym naruszeniem aksjomatów. Prewencja bez mojej zgody - jest.

Consider a bazooka, for example. Can the power of this implement be confined to those at whom it is aimed? Yes. Therefore it can be used purely for purposes of self-defense, and its possession is not an ipso facto violation of the libertarian code. If it is not possible to limit, to its intended targets, the physical harm created by a weapon but, rather, this must necessarily spill over onto innocent parties, then such an implement must be eliminated from legitimate arsenals.

To nie jest prawda. Skoro są możliwe przypadki, w których nikt niewinny nie oberwie, nie trzeba eliminować. Zresztą to również byłoby sprzeczne z teorią uprawnień. Broń powstaje z jakichś surowców. Surowce do kogoś należą. W którym miejscu i kto miałby prawo do konfiskaty i zmiany ich właściciela bez zgody uprzedniego?

 

[inho]

No więc skoro możliwe jest, by użyć BMR tylko przeciw kryminalistom, na przykład zbierając ich na jakimś prywatnym atolu i ich nuke'ując, może być także pinpointed jak łuk czy karabin i to tylko difference of degree pinpointingu. Jakaś broń strzelająca energetycznymi obręczami rozbiegającymi się w formie pierścienia jak czar nova z pierwszego diablo, o ograniczonym zasięgu też byłaby niekoszerna? Tymczasem w przypadku gdy jest się otoczonym przez agresorów, jest ona w sam raz, bo nie trzeba celować.

Przez takie idiotyczne, wymyślone z dupy dodatkowe kryteria, że broń którą nie da się celować jest sprzeczna z NAP, libertarianie wcielają się w rolę talmudystów. Samo istnienie jakiejkolwiek broni nie jest żadnym naruszeniem aksjomatów. Prewencja bez mojej zgody - jest.

To nie jest prawda. Skoro są możliwe przypadki, w których nikt niewinny nie oberwie, nie trzeba eliminować. Zresztą to również byłoby sprzeczne z teorią uprawnień. Broń powstaje z jakichś surowców. Surowce do kogoś należą. W którym miejscu i kto miałby prawo do konfiskaty i zmiany ich właściciela bez zgody uprzedniego?

Ciąg dalszy ze Stalina - rozwinięcie wcześniej postawionego wielokropku (nie myślałem, że będzie potrzebne):

These considerations give rise to what might be called a geographical,
spatial or proportionality thesis. We claim that there is an inverse
relationship between population density and the power of a weapon
that will be considered legitimate under libertarian law. Population
density in the entire universe is extremely small, so armaments of mass
destruction are legitimate in this context. On Earth, population density
is relatively far higher; therefore, small arms would be allowed, but
not atom bombs or worse. The key to legitimacy in both cases is the
ability to pinpoint or limit destructive power. Other things equal, it
is easier to do this, the lower the population density; hence the pro-
portionality thesis.

Perhaps this point can be more easily made by use of a series of
examples of decreasing population density. In the context of the entire
universe, a person can own just about as many hydrogen bombs as
desired since, given this vast arena, it is certainly possible for them all
to be used defensively. Suppose that Jupiter were inhabited by only 1,000
people, evenly spaced throughout the planet. Here, it would appear
reasonable for each of them to own the proverbial atom bomb, and keep
it in their basements if they wished. Given the low population density
involved, this device would no longer constitute a reductio ad absurdum
of the libertarian position, for the explosive power, even including the
fallout, could easily be confined to the enemy, or to the owner of the
territory himself, thus not imposing any negative effects on innocent
third parties. Since defensive use would thus be possible, there would
be no necessary violation of the libertarian postulate. The next level
down in population density might be places on Earth such as the Sahara,
or Antarctica. There might be no libertarian justification for owning
an atom bomb with fallout even in relatively empty areas such as these,
for detonation would affect at least a few innocent people. However,
one could, conceivably, own a “clean” atom bomb or a large amount of
TNT in such deserted areas, but not in a more crowded venue.

The proportionality thesis can be illustrated by use of a graph (Figure 1).
On the y axis we plot the power of the weapon, with the
hydrogen bomb at the top and fingernails at the bottom. On the x axis
there is population density, with space the least populated and cities the
most highly inhabited.
The relationship between these two could be depicted by any
downward-sloping curve; this would indicate that the more crowded
the situation, the less powerful the weapon that would pass muster under
this libertarian criterion. If power and population density could be
meaningfully integrated with one another (which is not being claimed
here), the implication is that the downward-sloping curve would be a
rectangular hyperbola, to indicate that the total of the two variables,
when multiplied together, would yield the same sum, namely the amount
of “force times population density” which would be on the dividing line
between legitimacy and illegitimacy.
What of “cpb?” Depicted in this realm of the x axis is a world so
crowded it would resemble a “crowded phone booth.” What would be
proper gun control policy under these extreme Malthusian assumptions?
Again, contrary to what we have been calling traditional libertarian
theory, the proportionality thesis yields a very different implication,
namely the prohibition of firearms. However, the difference here is only
with the conclusions that have previously been drawn on this topic, not
with the underlying libertarian principle itself. In other words, we are
putting forward the claim that proportionality theory leads to a more
plumb-line libertarian position than previously achieved. That is because,
paradoxically, it is more consistent with the premise that as long as a
weapon’s power can be confined to evildoers, that is, its purpose can be
limited to defense against aggression, it is not per se invasive and thus
must be legitimate.

However, in the hypercrowded world, not even a pistol, perhaps
not even a knife, can possibly be used without impacting innocent
people. If so, then it may be banned just as today we properly prohibit
ownership of nukes in cities.
This new way of looking at the matter leads to new conclusions
only at both ends of the population density continuum. At the low end,
extensive space, it allows ownership of thermonuclear devices, when
traditional libertarian theory would not. At the high end, the “crowded
telephone booth” kind of world, it prohibits guns and knives, when
traditional libertarian theory would legitimize these weapons. These
changes are not the result of an alteration of libertarian theory; this
remains the same. The different conclusions stem solely from very dif-
ferent assumptions about the world (or universe).

 

[inho]

...i ostatnia część, bo się w poprzednim nie mieściła (limit znaków):

In closing, let us consider the objection to banning made by the person
who wishes to possess a hydrogen bomb not for purposes of violence,
but rather for contemplation, or for aesthetic or scientific reasons, or as
a museum piece, etc. One answer is that the “artiste” could indeed locate
a nuclear bomb in his city basement, but only the outer contours of it,
that is, the shell casing alone, not the nuclear device. This ought to
suffice for sheer artistic contemplation.
Suppose, however, that this will not create the necessary artistic
“jolt.” For that, only an armed device will do. Too bad, from the liber-
tarian perspective. It is impossible to confine the harm done by such a
weapon to the owner himself, or to a “bad guy.”
In contrast, were a nuclear power station to blow up, its negative
power could not be so confined either, and yet this is legitimate under
libertarian law. What is the difference? The difference is that the one is
a weapon, the other not. Were we to ban all appliances whose power,
under the worst possible scenario, could not be confined to the appro-
priate people and their holdings, we would have to prohibit all aircraft,
and laboratories experimenting with deadly viruses, etc. This applies,
even, to roof less baseball stadiums (an escaping home-run ball can break
a window). The difference between all these others and the “artiste’s”
atom bomb is that the former is a weapon, the others not.
Rothbard (1990, p. 243) adumbrates the principles under which a
just determination can be made in this regard:

"The basic libertarian principle is that everyone should be allowed
to do whatever he is doing unless he is committing an overt act
of aggression against someone else. But what about situations
where it is unclear whether a person is committing aggression?
In those cases, the only procedure consonant with libertarian
principle is to do nothing; to lean over backwards to ensure that
the judicial agency is not coercing an innocent man. . . . The
presumption of every case . . . must be that every defendant is
innocent until proven guilty, and the burden of proof must rest
squarely upon the plaintiff."

So far, it sounds as if Rothbard is taking the side of the “artiste”
who wishes to maintain for contemplative purposes an armed thermo-
nuclear device in the basement of his home, located in the big city.
However, this is merely a first approximation. Given that the burden of
proof of criminal behavior is placed with this artiste’s neighbors, how
can these plaintiffs acquit their responsibilities?
States Rothbard (1990, p. 244):

". . . the best standard for any proof of guilt is the one commonly
used in criminal cases: proof “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Obviously, some doubt will almost always persist in gauging
people’s actions, so that a standard such as “beyond a scintilla of
doubt” would be hopelessly unrealistic. But the doubt must remain
small enough that any “reasonable man” will be convinced of the
defendant’s guilt. Establishing guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt”
appears to be the standard most consonant with libertarian principle."

An obvious rejoinder to this is that it conflicts with the Austrian eco-
nomic notion of subjectivism (Rothbard 1962, 1973, 1977, 1989; Mises
1966; Buchanan 1969; Buchanan and Thirlby 1981). In this view, great
weight is placed upon the subjective perceptions of the individual human
actor: a hydrogen bomb may well be merely an object of historical con-
templation, at least for some persons. The issue is, do we have to eschew
Austrian subjectivism in order to argue, as libertarians, that the hydrogen
bomb cannot legitimately be stored in a city art gallery?
Not at all, for under the libertarian code, to the extent that we
accept the subjective evaluations of people regarding reality (as opposed
to the “reasonable man” standard), it is the subjective evaluation of the
threatened victim, not the perpetrator, which is determinative.
Suppose A comes rushing at B carrying a knife in the up-thrust
position, while yelling “Kill!” in a blood-curdling manner, whereupon
B draws his pistol and shoots A dead. Later, it turns out that A was
merely an actor, practicing for a part, and that the knife was made of
rubber, as are most stage props of that sort. Is B guilty of murder? Not
a bit of it. Rather, B would properly be judged to have done no more
than exercise his right of self-defense. Even the reasonable man would
have so concluded.
In similar manner, were we to take any subjective considerations
into account as a matter of libertarian law, it would not be those of the
contemplator of the A bomb; rather, it would be those of his neighbors,
who, presumably, take a very different view of this device.
What, then, of a possible reductio regarding airplanes? Every once
in a while these devices crash, killing people on the ground who did not
agree to bear this risk, as did the passengers. As we have seen, the victim
of the knife attack, not the perpetrator, was allowed to determine the
reality of the situation. Why do we not allow such possible victims of
airplane crashes to determine if these are invasive weapons (which they
are, after the fact, from the perspective of those on the ground upon
whom they crash). If such a determination were made, of course, it
would spell the end of this industry.
The answer is that no reasonable person would ever come to any
such conclusion. Yes, airplanes sometimes crash, but, apart from those
used by Japanese kamikaze pilots in World War II, they cannot by any
stretch of the imagination be considered as weapons. In contrast, the
nuclear weapon located in the same geographical area as millions of
innocent people, in any reasonable interpretation, would be understood
as an armament, despite all the protestations of the contemplator to
the contrary.
So far, we have looked at gun control from what we will call a
macro-geographical perspective. In order to determine appropriate
weapon restrictions, we must know the geographical context at large. If
we are talking about the Earth, a “doomsday” thermonuclear device,
able to blow up the entire planet and all the people who inhabit it, is
per se offensive. Its power cannot possibly be confined to the guilty.
Harboring such a weapon is thus an offense, and may properly be pro-
hibited, but not in the vastness of space, an altogether different geo-
graphical domain. Similarly, a pistol must be banned from the super-
crowded “phone booth” world, because, by stipulation, its offensive
power cannot there be limited; in contrast, in our real world, revolvers
would be allowed, since they most certainly can be pinpointed.
Now, in conclusion, we look at this issue from what might be called
a micro -geo graphical perspective. Suppose there is a nuclear bomb
which is at present able to explode, except for the fact that the trigger
is located one mile away from the rest of the apparatus. Should this
configuration be precluded by law in our real world, given our libertar-
ian considerations? How about if the distance were 100 yards? Ten feet?
One inch? One millimeter? The problem, of course, is that if the
trigger and the remainder of the bomb are very close to each other, the
device can explode if someone as much as sneezes. This would tend to
incline us to demand a reasonable distance between the constituent
elements of a bomb which would, when assembled, be illegitimate. On
the other hand, a distance of even one mile can be overcome easily by
a determined evildoer. Further complicating the analysis is the fact
that, at least nowadays, the different elements of a bomb (e.g., copper,
zinc and uranium, etc.) can be assembled without too much difficulty,
and if we want to prevent illegal atom bomb holding, we seem to be
set on a slippery slope which will outlaw stockpiling all such elements,
a manifest absurdity.
There is no real solution to this micro-geographical issue, since it
is really a continuum problem. How far from B’s nose does A’s fist have
to be before B is properly entitled to launch defensive forceful counter-
measures? Again, there perhaps is no better answer than relying on
context and the opinion of the “reasonable man.” This may not be as
satisfying philosophically as a more definitive answer, but, as the problem
stems from the (continuous) nature of reality, this is the best answer
that can be given.

Amen dla komucha...

 

[Mad.lock]

Nie dość, że długie, to jeszcze po angielsku.

 

[FatBantha]

Przecież to jest kompletnie absurdalne. Zagęszczenie ludności i jakaś wybujała proporcjonalność wpływająca na legalność danej broni jest zupełnie bezsensowna. Nawet w związku ze wspomnianą bronią palną w zatłoczonej budce telefonicznej - Gun Free Zone, serio? Heh, kawador przestanie być libertarianinem po takim tekście.

Nawet do urzeczywistnienia tego rodzaju zasady jako globalnej potrzebna jest jakaś centralna władza, bo ludzie nie są jednomyślni. I mnie raczej interesuje, jakie jest uzasadnienie uprawnień tej władzy i skąd one pochodzą oraz to, czemu miałbym się jej podporządkować.

 

[inho]

Nie dość, że długie, to jeszcze po angielsku.

LOL. To co Ty wiedzę czerpiesz z polskiej wikipedii? W skrócie: przedstawione jest "wypracowane" (fair summary of the consensus libertarian position on gun control, as it now exists) stanowisko libertarian w kwestii BMR jako naruszającej aksjomat nieagresji. Teksty zawierają również analizę większości rozważanych tu argumentów typu bomba w piwnicy, bomba w celach artystycznych, rozbijanie meteorytów itp.

 

[kr2y510]

Ja tam wolę broń masowego rażenia w sklepach, niźli w rękach "syryjskich rebeliantów" (kryminalistów pochodzących z Arabii Saudyjskiej) wspieranych przez Izrael i USA.

 

[GAZDA]

@inho, odpowiedz na moje pytanie czego ty tu właściwie chcesz? przekonać kogoś do komuny?

 

[Caleb]

nie jest zabawnym patrzec jak wartościowe posty giną we floodzie @inho. Gościu streść co wklejasz, bo TL;DR i mam pewne obawy, że sensownych treści tam nie uświadczę. Wnoszę o bana, bo @Szynka wspominał o problemach z ignorowaniem.