|
Well... Lots of people would attack me for wanting a helicopter gunship mounted with vulcan* cannon (and misiles) for my perceived self defence. You don't define what you mean by mass destruction. What blast radius qualifies for mass destruction as opposed to medium destruction? Fatfingers is right in suggesting there is no natural rights argument for banning individuals from owning WMD. It is a utilitarian argument only**. I'll add that I don't want my neighbours to get their hands on a bunch of nukes, but you could propose a "polite" society where everyone had nukes, and to piss them off too much was to get blown up. Just another market incentive to reach mutually acceptable solutions.*** A WMD can be used just as effectively to retaliate in self defence as a helicopter gunship, especially if you don't live close to your target. What's my point? Just that I don't think libertarianism can be defended totally on the natural rights argument. There needs to be an element of utilitarianist government control . So I guess I'm a minarchist, not an anarchist... * I was just reading an article in my brothers gun magazine about Gatling guns evolving into modern Vulcan cannon. I don't think the New South Wales government would take too kindly top me asserting I had a right to 6 barreled revolving machine guns, even for self defence... ** OK, I hope I've picked up enough of the lingo to use this successfully... If I misunderstand the difference between natural rights versus utilitarian, I hope someone will point it out to me without being too rude... *** There is a signifigant market disincentive to individuals aquiring nukes. Perhaps we should just trust the market to allow individuals to aquire the most appropriate weapon for their individual needs?
| 
