Dr. Walter Block replied to the following email:
Dr. Block,
Suppose technology advances to the point that an individual, or even a country, could construct a device capable of destroying the entire world. Libertarian philosophy, as I understand it, would not allow that individual or country to be stopped until “button” was pushed. At that point, however, it would be too late for all of us.
As an engineer, I realize this situation assumes many things, such as how that much energetic material to power the device could be gathered up, the costs involved in such an endeavor, etc. Let’s make it simple and suppose a very smart scientist or engineer discovered a simple, inexpensive way to create a black-hole that would devour the earth.
Clearly, if the intent of the individual or country was to destroy the world and this intent was made public, then self-defense from aggression would apply. This is similar to the fact that one doesn’t have to wait to be stabbed or shot to initiate self-defense. But, let’s say the individual or country is very psychotic or a good liar and hides the true purpose of the device.
It seems to me there must be some form of “for the ultimate good” that this individual or country could be legally stopped on libertarian principles.
Regards,
Dr Block's response:
Dear ....
I have written about this:
Block, Walter and Matthew Block. 2000. “Toward a Universal Libertarian Theory of Gun (Weapon) Control,” Ethics, Place and Environment, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 289-298;
http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/theory_gun_control.pdf; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228127780_Toward_a_Universal_Libertarian_Theory_of_Gun_(Weapon)_Control_A_Spatial_and_Georgraphical_Analysis?ev=prf_pub
Best regards,
Walter
Walter E. Block, Ph.D.
Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics
Joseph A. Butt, S.J. College of Business
Loyola University New Orleans
wblock@loyno.edu
The "what about nuclear weapons" argument is a red herring argument to begin with.
ReplyDeleteLaws do not stop individuals from building or obtaining nuclear weapons; economics does. When it becomes economical for an individual to build a personal nuke, it won't be possible to stop them.
Doesn't seem like you read Block's paper. Legally, under libertarian law, you can stop them; because such an item cannot be used consistent with libertarianism (except maybe in outer space?).
DeleteWhile I have huge respect for Walter Block, what he writes relative to this is meaningless. No law -- libertarian or otherwise -- will stop personal nuclear weapons. The economics of creating those weapons is what stops personal ownership. When it becomes economical to create such weapons (which will likely happen sometime in the distant future), no one will be able to stop their creation. Hopefully, there will be come kind of defense against such weapons whenever that time comes.
DeleteSorry Prof. Block, there is no such thing as property immoral to peacefully own. It’s irrelevant how others feel about the property. It’s irrelevant what possible uses it may or may not have. It’s irrelevant why the owner wants to own it. The relevant issue with a nuclear bomb is the libertarian legality of posing significant, out-of-the-ordinary risk to others’ lives and property.
ReplyDeleteOne can’t do that without either obtaining consent or possessing adequate ability to fully compensate any victims for damages. But even big risks can be mitigated with enough money. One can invest to lower the risks. One can buy insurance to provide for risks. One can buy consent to risks through contractual agreements.
For a nuclear bomb, such an undertaking would be akin to privately building a massive hydroelectric dam or nuclear power plant. A lot of potentially affected parties to get consents from; a lot of risks to mitigate with extensive safeguards; a lot of expensive insurance to obtain. A well-resourced enough organization operating in a market with enough demand might be able to afford it.
The cost would not be affordable in any scenario where a single individual had the unfettered, unilateral power to detonate the bomb. The associated risk would be impossibly expensive to obtain consent or insurance for.
I doubt scenarios would arise where the perceived benefits of nuclear bomb possession would outweigh its true costs pricing in all risks. But only the free market can reveal the answer to that.