Grenades, Rocket Launchers, etc.

[masterlock]

I was discussing the concept of voluntaryism with a friend, and he asked what would stop people from getting and using such things as grenades and rocket launchers in a voluntary society. I had to admin I didn't have an answer. Any thoughts on how a voluntary society would deal with crazy people using weapons like this?

[GRosado]

Businesses that sell weapons will have a form of background check for people or there will be some sort of private oversight organization that will set standards for businesses that sell weapons to follow. I'm not sure what could prevent illegal weapon sales but I'm pretty sure there is some way to discourage it.

 

Now let's theorize that some bad people get ahold of weapons & plan to use them for nefarious purposes. Businesses, individuals or collectives can pay for protection from these bad people through PMCs, security guards etc cetera or they can purchase there own weapons & use them in self defense.

[dsayers]

First and foremost, we have to ask if non-voluntaryism (coercive; theft, assault, rape, and murder) is moral. If not, then we understand that the minutia aren't terribly important. As we explore, it's under the understanding that voluntary interaction IS moral.

 

You have to look at how we could arrive at a voluntary society. It would require acceptance of moral principles, which includes that violence isn't a solution to problems. This means parents wouldn't abuse their children, who could develop into empathetic creatures capable of negotiation. The incidence of "crazy people" would be significantly diminished.

 

Even today, when parents do abuse their children and coercion is pervasive even as far as schooling, for the most part, the only people using grenades and rocket launchers tend to be those in positions of presumed authority. People who believe that is noble have no such inclination in regards to individuals owning the same things. What this means is that for somebody to ask the question, they are essentially saying that they refuse to accept the moral argument until you can pass some arbitrary test. The problem is that their mind is already made up. The test is just there to distract you and to provide the illusion that the conclusion they choose to hold onto is a principled one.

 

How do we deal with crazy people using grenades and rocket launchers? Don't give them legitimacy, a title, and a license to steal from everybody, lock people up without charging them, torturing people, killing people who are standing near the people they THINK are a problem, etc. "I'm afraid of grenades and rockets launchers in a world where nobody would accept this as legitimate and would try to stop it, so I'm going to legitimize a select few who answer to nobody who use the things all the time," isn't logical.

[Daniel Unplugged]

In a voluntary society, I suspect there will very little preventing the purchase of rocket launchers for legitimate purposes because it does not violate the NAP, the principle that such a society would be based on. Note that firing a rocket launcher because watching (your own) stuff explode amuses you, is a legitimate purpose for owning one. A rocket launcher manufacturer, may require that you provide a level of proof that you want it for legitimate purposes. If the rocket launcher salesman, if he has any integrity at all, as almost all people would in a voluntary society, he would refuse to sell to anybody he suspects will use the rocket launcher to murder innocent people.

 

With regards to how a voluntary society would deal with people who like to murder other people, I suspect that it would be somewhat similar to how our current society deals with (non government) murderers, only far more humanely, accurately, cheaply and effectively. On second thoughts, it would actually be nothing like our current system.

[NumberSix]

The real question is which is worse: a madman with a grenade or a madman controling an army.

[dsayers]

A rocket launcher manufacturer, may require that you provide a level of proof that you want it for legitimate purposes.

 

I couldn't possibly know for sure of course, but I don't think this would happen. Can you imagine the overhead a company would have to incur and therefore the customers would have to pay for if instead of just manufacturing a product, the company had to screen each and every purchase.

 

I imagine the free market solution might look more like the same guidance systems such things employ today to be more effective killers, could be used to manage safer deployment. Facial recognition, human body-shaped heat signature avoidance, etc. Or if this sort of thing actually got to be a problem, we could build towers that detected the deployment of such things and shot a laser through it rendering it harmless.

 

I think it would be interesting to see the evolution of these technologies when the companies actually have to serve customer demand instead of being subsidized.

[Daniel Unplugged]

I couldn't possibly know for sure of course, but I don't think this would happen. Can you imagine the overhead a company would have to incur and therefore the customers would have to pay for if instead of just manufacturing a product, the company had to screen each and every purchase. I imagine the free market solution might look more like the same guidance systems such things employ today to be more effective killers, could be used to manage safer deployment. Facial recognition, human body-shaped heat signature avoidance, etc. Or if this sort of thing actually got to be a problem, we could build towers that detected the deployment of such things and shot a laser through it rendering it harmless. I think it would be interesting to see the evolution of these technologies when the companies actually have to serve customer demand instead of being subsidized.

That was only speculation of course. What I had in mind was the following. Identification would be necessary in a free society, in order to asses the credibility of a person entering into a contract. Since rocket launchers have the potential to be used to do great harm a simple ID check against a database of known sociopaths would seem appropriate. It would provide a level of safety, for a minimal cost. It would not be foolproof of course. The market may demand such checks. If a rocket launcher was used to bring down a jet, the manufacturer would get a lot of bad press for being negligent. This would hurt their brand, and they may decide that requiring an ID check is better for business, since it will keep them on good terms with their responsible gun owner customers. FYI, I'm all for the right to bear arms, when applied to government.Interesting for sure, but for now, we only get to speculate

The real question is which is worse: a madman with a grenade or a madman controling an army.

So true

[dsayers]

Since rocket launchers have the potential to be used to do great harm a simple ID check against a database of known sociopaths would seem appropriate. It would provide a level of safety, for a minimal cost.

 

I have two challenges I'd like to offer if that is okay.

 

"Could be used to do great harm" can apply to anything. However, I don't even think that potential harmfulness would be a requisite for checking against a database. The premise for voluntary justice as I understand it (generally speaking) is to not do business with people who have committed immoral acts without having satisfied any restitution expectations of the victim. In a voluntary society, I would consent to swiping a card, or putting my thumb on the glass, or having a chip sewn into my skin if it meant anybody who committed theft, assault, rape, or murder would have to either flee society or submit to restitution.

 

My second challenge is: On what do you base the expectation that an intention of restricted access equates to increased safety? When alcohol was banned in the US, people didn't stop drinking, but what they drank was far less safe as a result of the ban. We have eleventy bazillion rules one must conform to in order to be able to possess a gun, but criminals still get a hold of them. Maybe those rules make such an acquisition more difficult. In the meantime, EVERY innocent person has to go through a ton of garbage to get permission to do something they shouldn't need permission for. I view such a restriction as punishing the innocent for the transgressions of the guilty.

 

I know we're only speculating, but I am enjoying exploring it. I hope I'm making it enjoyable for others also. 

[Daniel Unplugged]

I have two challenges I'd like to offer if that is okay."Could be used to do great harm" can apply to anything. However, I don't even think that potential harmfulness would be a requisite for checking against a database. The premise for voluntary justice as I understand it (generally speaking) is to not do business with people who have committed immoral acts without having satisfied any restitution expectations of the victim. In a voluntary society, I would consent to swiping a card, or putting my thumb on the glass, or having a chip sewn into my skin if it meant anybody who committed theft, assault, rape, or murder would have to either flee society or submit to restitution.My second challenge is: On what do you base the expectation that an intention of restricted access equates to increased safety? When alcohol was banned in the US, people didn't stop drinking, but what they drank was far less safe as a result of the ban. We have eleventy bazillion rules one must conform to in order to be able to possess a gun, but criminals still get a hold of them. Maybe those rules make such an acquisition more difficult. In the meantime, EVERY innocent person has to go through a ton of garbage to get permission to do something they shouldn't need permission for. I view such a restriction as punishing the innocent for the transgressions of the guilty.I know we're only speculating, but I am enjoying exploring it. I hope I'm making it enjoyable for others also.

Me too :)The point I was trying to make was that in a free society, sociopaths would be recognized early, and if they can't be treated, their actions would be limited be people refusing to provide them the means to do harm - pretty much the same point you make. I'm not too keen on the idea of having a chip sewn into my arm, but then again, I live in a police state. I have little idea what kind of person I would be if I was free, only that I would spend much less time worrying about my lack of freedom. I could maybe spend my time trying to do good in the world, instead of trying to reduce evil.Wirh regards to the restriction of supply, rocket launchers are not your typical, availiable to purchase at your local conerstore gun . Remember, I'm from Australia where handguns are all but banned, as are all military grade weapons and semi automatic rifles, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that. Lol. So, due to the relative obscurity of rocket launchers and other weapons of "mass destruction", and the small number of sources of these weapons (I'm assuming they are too difficult to manufacture in your garage, unlike moonshine, or meth for that matter), I would imagine that some level of restriction on their supply can be achieved. Again, nowhere near foolproof, and serious and organised sociopaths will likely find a way, but it would probably be possible to stop someone having a bad day from purchasing one and relieving his frustration on a bus. I'm starting to sound like a Democrat, so I'll stop there.In a free society, the "background check" would probably be as quick and easy as: check the photo, scan your ID, make sure no red flags come up, delete the record of the check, and here's your rocket launcher.On a side note, if I remember correctly, there are only 2 rights of citizens listed in the Australian constitution, the right to remain silent, and the right to a trial by jury, and of course, you only get those rights once you have been kidnapped by the state. And, of course, those rights are routinely violated by the state.

[nathanm]

Since there's no Private violence committed using grenades and rocket launchers now but lots of Public violence committed using grenades and rocket launchers, we can assume that in the absence of the Public group the amount of violence committed using grenades and rocket launchers would be zero.

[dsayers]

I'm not too keen on the idea of having a chip sewn into my arm, but then again, I live in a police state. I have little idea what kind of person I would be if I was free, only that I would spend much less time worrying about my lack of freedom.

 

I can sympathize. The things I'd willingly submit to in a free society but vehemently resist the very encroachment of in the Statist paradigm is virtually endless. I often wonder if privacy wouldn't be anywhere near as if there weren't a State trying to steal it from us and conceal it in regards to "legitimate" criminals.

[masterlock]

Thank you everyone for the thoughtful analysis and ideas. You have given me something to think about. I have wrestled philisophically with the feasibility and practicality of pure anarchism versus something more like minarchism. It seems everytime the minarchistic view holds an advanatge. The issue of enforcement in a voluntary society is a hard one to deal with.

[dsayers]

Are you up for talking about those things? I'd like to be able to help if I'm able.

 

The issue of enforcement in a voluntary society is a hard one to deal with.

 

Enforcement of what? Something that somebody chose such as a contract or something somebody didn't choose like legislation? Well legislation is a command backed by threat of violence. Enforcing such things would be incompatible with a free society. Who is a bigger contract violator than the State itself? Even if commands backed by threats of violence were just, they don't conform to them. When they don't, who enforces their breach? Would would enforce the breaches of those who enforce the breach of those who enforce the commands?

 

I think most minarchists who talk about enforcement are talking about crime. If we want to address any problem, we need to understand the nature of the problem first. We know that criminality is predicated on abuse. The State embodies such abuse. Saying that we need abuse to combat that which is predicated on abuse isn't understanding or addressing the problem. We're told by the most successful criminals in the world that criminality is rampant. If we think that criminality is a given to any meaningful degree, we will cling to an illusory protector who just happens to be the biggest criminals of all.

 

When I read, "It seems everytime the minarchistic view holds an advantage," I find myself wanting to ask a number of questions. First of all, in a world full of "maxarchism," one must have a reason to contemplate minarchism and anarchism. In what ways do you find minarchism to be more acceptable than maxarchism? Wouldn't these same reasons make anarchism more acceptable than minarchism? It works in the other direction as well: If anarchism is less acceptable than minarchism because you need a State for certain function, then wouldn't having such a State be more beneficial the more roles it could fill?

 

If it were true that we need a government for certain roles, wouldn't which roles be subjective and contended? In the end, isn't government just people? If the solution comes from people (State), then why couldn't the solution come from people (no rulers)? If you haven't already, I'd check out Stefan Molyneux's Practical Anarchy. It's free on his website, or you click the link in my sig for a chopped up audio version for consumption on the go. In it, he talks about possible voluntary solutions to problems.

 

If you want to know if minarchy has an advantage over anarchy, all you have to do is consider the source of the problems that minarchists say we need some government for. They all have to do with the initiation of the use of force. If we agree that the initiation of the use of force is immoral, then you cannot have a state. What do you think about this?

[JohnPozzi]

Consider the Global Resource Bank alternative to grenades, rocket launchers, H bombs, etc., John

[MrCapitalism]

A pretty good video on assumptions of weapon ownership and mass society.

 

[masterlock]

Are you up for talking about those things? I'd like to be able to help if I'm able.

 

 

Enforcement of what? Something that somebody chose such as a contract or something somebody didn't choose like legislation? Well legislation is a command backed by threat of violence. Enforcing such things would be incompatible with a free society. Who is a bigger contract violator than the State itself? Even if commands backed by threats of violence were just, they don't conform to them. When they don't, who enforces their breach? Would would enforce the breaches of those who enforce the breach of those who enforce the commands?

 

I think most minarchists who talk about enforcement are talking about crime. If we want to address any problem, we need to understand the nature of the problem first. We know that criminality is predicated on abuse. The State embodies such abuse. Saying that we need abuse to combat that which is predicated on abuse isn't understanding or addressing the problem. We're told by the most successful criminals in the world that criminality is rampant. If we think that criminality is a given to any meaningful degree, we will cling to an illusory protector who just happens to be the biggest criminals of all.

 

When I read, "It seems everytime the minarchistic view holds an advantage," I find myself wanting to ask a number of questions. First of all, in a world full of "maxarchism," one must have a reason to contemplate minarchism and anarchism. In what ways do you find minarchism to be more acceptable than maxarchism? Wouldn't these same reasons make anarchism more acceptable than minarchism? It works in the other direction as well: If anarchism is less acceptable than minarchism because you need a State for certain function, then wouldn't having such a State be more beneficial the more roles it could fill?

 

If it were true that we need a government for certain roles, wouldn't which roles be subjective and contended? In the end, isn't government just people? If the solution comes from people (State), then why couldn't the solution come from people (no rulers)? If you haven't already, I'd check out Stefan Molyneux's Practical Anarchy. It's free on his website, or you click the link in my sig for a chopped up audio version for consumption on the go. In it, he talks about possible voluntary solutions to problems.

 

If you want to know if minarchy has an advantage over anarchy, all you have to do is consider the source of the problems that minarchists say we need some government for. They all have to do with the initiation of the use of force. If we agree that the initiation of the use of force is immoral, then you cannot have a state. What do you think about this?

 

 

I can think of all kinds of problems that would arise as a result of not having government, just as I can think of all ikinds of problems that would be solved by not having government.

 

But I will instead respond to the view that government is immoral since it is prediated on the initiation of force. While this may be true, it is a blanket statement since it ignores whether the use of said force is offensive or defensive. I doubt many people would have qualms with a police officer acting to save a life, for example. This is an example of defensive force. Cops harassing citizens in one way or another is an example of offensive force.

 

The question in my mind is, would it be possible to construct a purely defensive government? I am talking about a government that uses force ONLY to protect rights. The "constitution" could be written in such a way that the government's sole power is that of defending the right of self-determination and private property.

 

My belief is that most people want to do the right thing and get along. Yes, raising children the right way would solve may social problems. But I also believe that human beings, despite the best upbringings, are still capable of deceit, fraud, violence, etc. Such people need to be brought to justice. It's easy to conjecture about DROs, but the reality is without an enforcement mechanism, the DROs decision carries no force.

Consider the Global Resource Bank alternative to grenades, rocket launchers, H bombs, etc., John

Even after reading about this it's still not clear what the heck it is.

First and foremost, we have to ask if non-voluntaryism (coercive; theft, assault, rape, and murder) is moral. If not, then we understand that the minutia aren't terribly important. As we explore, it's under the understanding that voluntary interaction IS moral.

 

You have to look at how we could arrive at a voluntary society. It would require acceptance of moral principles, which includes that violence isn't a solution to problems. This means parents wouldn't abuse their children, who could develop into empathetic creatures capable of negotiation. The incidence of "crazy people" would be significantly diminished.

 

Even today, when parents do abuse their children and coercion is pervasive even as far as schooling, for the most part, the only people using grenades and rocket launchers tend to be those in positions of presumed authority. People who believe that is noble have no such inclination in regards to individuals owning the same things. What this means is that for somebody to ask the question, they are essentially saying that they refuse to accept the moral argument until you can pass some arbitrary test. The problem is that their mind is already made up. The test is just there to distract you and to provide the illusion that the conclusion they choose to hold onto is a principled one.

 

How do we deal with crazy people using grenades and rocket launchers? Don't give them legitimacy, a title, and a license to steal from everybody, lock people up without charging them, torturing people, killing people who are standing near the people they THINK are a problem, etc. "I'm afraid of grenades and rockets launchers in a world where nobody would accept this as legitimate and would try to stop it, so I'm going to legitimize a select few who answer to nobody who use the things all the time," isn't logical.

Bu there would not be a world in which NOBODY accepts grenades and other heavy arms as legitimate. There would always be at least SOME people who would seek these things out...and use them.

[Andrew79]

The question in my mind is, would it be possible to construct a purely defensive government?

A government that doesn't use offensive force isn't a government, it's a business.

[dsayers]

I also believe that human beings, despite the best upbringings, are still capable of deceit, fraud, violence, etc.

 

This is prejudiced. Science can explain the roots of aggression and dysfunction. A child that is raised egalitarian, taught to be rational, negotiated with, and protected against contrary experiences would be teeming with empathy. Such a person would become physically ill at the very thought of harming another person.

 

But I will instead respond to the view that government is immoral since it is prediated on the initiation of force. While this may be true, it is a blanket statement since it ignores whether the use of said force is offensive or defensive.

 

In the phrase, "initiation of the use of force," the word "initiation" means it is aggression. Governments claim influence over geographical areas, but they do not legitimately own those areas or anybody in it. Their very nature violates property rights by not securing consent. If consent is secured, you are now describing a contract, not government.