From the Lee Wrights for Texas Governor campaign website:
One of the strongest characteristics of human nature – perhaps the most fundamental characteristic – is the desire for self-preservation. That’s why people will jump out of the way of a speeding car, or duck when someone throws something at them. No one can care as much about your life as you do.
This simple truth is why self-defense cannot be entrusted to others, to police or politicians, because they are incapable of always being around, especially when they are most needed. The insanity of gun control is not that we have insufficient laws, but that we are forced to relinquish our ability for self-preservation to groups or governments that cannot possibly protect us, and who suffer no consequences for failing.
The right to keep and bear arms was enshrined in the Bill of Rights because the founders of our nation understood this basic, fundamental concept. Libertarians recognize that the only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights – life, liberty, and justly acquired property. The right to self-defense is an individual right and no law can legitimately restrict or limit the individual’s right to own, manufacture, transfer or sell firearms or ammunition or to exercise this right of self-defense.
It’s insane to disarm ourselves only to be left at the mercy of criminals who are no more troubled by the State’s new laws than they were with the old ones. Beware the individual who says you do not need a gun. That kind of person will get you killed.
Sounds like a plausible explanation to me.
To the extent that Mutual Assured Destruction “works” — and it appears to have “worked” for about half a century now — there’s no reason why it wouldn’t work for non-state people/groups as well as for others. “We have a weapon that we will use, if you give us no choice. So don’t give us no choice.”
But as a practical matter, nukes are finance- and labor-intensive to design, build and maintain, and offer no real return on investment … they’re basically an extraordinarily expensive hedge. While I suppose it’s possible that some non-state entity might have the resources to do it, the real question would be “why bother?” Apart from exotic applications like mining asteroids or pushing a spaceship, it seems likely that only an entity that already has a very large, very lucrative protection racket — in other words, a state — could both afford to do it and would have a desire to do it.
Or, to put it a different way, “private nukes” are only an “issue” in the minds of people like Robert Capozzi who want to be libertarians but who also want a reason to preserve the state in some form and, casting about desperately for such a reason, fasten on the absurd.
Would this practical question not apply to rogue non-states in the same way it applies to rogue states?
What do we do about it if he does?
jz: Either we push for total global nuclear disarmament, or we let private citizens protect themselves against monstrous, weaponized governments. Anything else is unacceptable.
me: Meant to comment on this….this sentence needs LOTS of unpacking. Yes, one COULD push for disarmament, but after decades of efforts by some on this issue, it has if anything gone in the other direction. More nations have joined the nuclear club. Even if 98% of the world supported disarmament, the practical questions of verification and so forth makes the ideal seem unsolvable.
I guess I’d need to understand how private nukes help anyone “protect” themselves. Say very wealthy sociopath secures one, say in the Idaho mountains. Tell us how that makes him any more safe?
On its face, these extreme prescriptions miss the nature of WMD. They kill in wide swathes of territory indiscriminately.
I think the great lesson from the socialist movement of a century ago was that it didn’t take just one approach, but a variety of approaches taken by different people simultaneously – education, protest, extremists, moderates, revolutionaries, reformers, alternative parties, infiltration of the establishment parties, etc. All pushing in the same general direction for decades. That made changes happen.
If libertarians are to succeed I believe it will be along a similar model. Just get in where you fit in and help push in the direction of more liberty; worry less about how other people do it, some of them will learn to do it better through experience, others will never learn no matter what you do or say. That’s the best advice I can give, in case anyone wants to take my advice.
PF: Let’s get the ball rolling in the direction of more freedom and fewer restrictions
Me: 100% agree! How to do that is a great question….
Does staking out the most extreme position get that done? Or is it better to take a more thoughtful, reasonable approach?
Well since we inevitably went there…what exactly could a government do to an ill-intentioned person who gets a hold of a nuke? Nuke them first? Would a nuclearly disarmed government be able to stop the rogue non-state? What about the person’s concerned neighbors, or anyone within their firing radius, would they need a monopoly government to do whatever could be done to stop such a person or persons from using such a weapon?
While someone answers that I’ll go reload.
Oh I don’t, it’s just usually they do. Either we push for total global nuclear disarmament, or we let private citizens protect themselves against monstrous, weaponized governments. Anything else is unacceptable.
Jed,
Why do you assume that someone who doesn’t trust them in the hands of average citizens DOES trust them in the hands of the government?
My answer to the private nukes scenario is simple: If you don’t trust them in the hands of average citizens, why do you trust them in the hands of the government?
Based on past evidence and experience, I predict an “arms race” of escalating speculative fantasies, possibly leading to the use of weapons of mass distraction in the midst of keyboard warfare, an eventual cease-fire due to exhaustion with neither side gaining anything, and an eventual resumption of automatic typing hostilities at some unspecified point in time, with the cycle repeating ad nauseum while outside the window things are going in the opposite direction.
Oh, I don’t have any plans to “debate” those scenarios with RC in this thread.
It’s just that every time there’s an opportunity, he throws his “questions” into the mix. So now I have a pre-emptive set of answers to those questions so that we can move on instead of getting sucked into his fantasy world.
And here we go again 🙂
We’ve debated the whole “private nukes” thing and other such highly theoretical scenarios with RC enough times already, IMO, but have fun.
In the meantime, we’ll be getting closer and close to the British, Australian or Weimar Republic answers to that question out in the real world…
“The real questions are WHAT can be toted and WHERE can it be be excluded?”
Q: What can be toted?
A: Anything you can tote, provided it is an item which mere possession of does not constitute initiation of force (assuming there is any such kind of item — that’s debatable).
Q: Where can it be excluded?
A: In any place where having it would be an initiation of force — e.g. other people’s property if they say no (because violating their conditions would be trespassing).
Bonus Q/A:
Q: What about “public” property?
A: If you’re a member of the “public,” it’s your property, so you get to decide how you use it so long as your use doesn’t deprive other members of the “public” of their own usage rights.
Let’s get the ball rolling in the direction of more freedom and fewer restrictions. If and whn we get to a point where you feel like we have too much freedom or too few restrictions let me know. Until then I am more interested in turning things around, and the momentum is working against me, so I don’t have a lot of time and energy to spend on arguing how far I should go if I should somehow manage to succeed.
PF, yes, I see your point. For me, I happen to believe that the truth shall set you free in all things, so gaining clarity on what one’s truth is is vital in persuading others.
Sometimes one’s own truth is that one is unsure/uncertain, but for me knowing that too is important to the process. I for ex don’t know where to draw the line on what weapons are so inherently dangerous that they should not be protected by 2a.
How to overcome dysfunction is a question of a practical nature. Generally, though, being reasonable and thoughtful generally wins the day. Siding with one extreme POV might feel good, but I’d say it’s an excellent way to alienate.
That may be the real question somewhere down the line. Right now our problems are in the other direction. The real question is how to overcome them before they overcome us.
lw: The right to self-defense is an individual right and no law can legitimately restrict or limit the individual’s right to own, manufacture, transfer or sell firearms or ammunition or to exercise this right of self-defense.
Me: Fine as far as it goes. The real questions are WHAT can be toted and WHERE can it be be excluded?
Have I ever mentioned how much I love Lee Wrights?
Well put!