[varwoche]

Following up on a discussion started in this thread... Here's Badnarik's right-to-bear nukes article, full text, emphasis added.

Finally, I will respond to one question I recently received via eMail. I am asked this question on a regular basis, to wit:

I have a question about the second amendment. I have the right to bear arms which cannot be infringed. Does that mean I can have a semi-automatic?
If so, then what about an automatic?
If so, what about a tank?
If so, what about a scud missle system?
If so, what about biological weapons?
If so, what about chemical weapons?
If so, what about nuclear weapons?
Is there a line and if so where is it?

This is an excellent question. It is most easily answered by analyzing a person wearing a revolver in a holster - a very low-tech choice of self-defense. Does a person have a right to wear the holster? Yes - of course. Does a person have a right to extract the revolver from the holster? Yes - assuming that they do not subsequently try to make an "unauthorized withdrawal" from a bank or someone's wallet. Assuming you were minding your own business in the first place, does a person have the right to point their revolver at you? No - absolutely not. You are not required to wait until another person shoots at you before you take action to defend your life or property. The line that has been crossed is known as a "clear and present danger", and it exists when there would be no opportunity to react if and when the person decides to pull the trigger.

This answer will not satisfy many people (such as Rosie O'Donnell or Diane Feinstein) because a "clear and present danger", like beauty, is in the mind of the beholder. It depends on WHO has extracted the revolver from the holster, and how much of a threat the person doing the evaluation feels at the moment. I think it would be GREAT to live next door to a neighbor with a functioning army tank, however I would want to be REALLY CLOSE FRIENDS with anyone who had any form of nuclear capability. It is very much like sexual harassment. I am pleased to report that there are still women in my circle of friends to whom I can say, "Hey there, Gorgeous! C'mere and give me a hug and a kiss." There are others - many of whom I knew in California - who would interpret that remark as grounds for a lawsuit. What we fail to remember in today's society is that everyone is DIFFERENT, and every situation must be evaluated on a case by case basis. One size does NOT fit all, which is why is it immoral (and unconstitutional) to establish uniform rules against "assault rifles", "Saturday night specials", and "cop killer bullets". It is interesting to note that it is an "assault rifle" if I am holding it, and an "anti-assault rifle" if I hand it to a police officer. And what the heck is a "cop killer bullet", anyway? A person with a 22 caliber target pistol that is sufficiently close to his/her target can kill anyone - whether or not they are wearing a badge. Therefore terminology such as these are created by those who wish to convert your rights into privileges by playing on the emotions of the uneducated.

In the implausible event that anyone is still uncertain what my position is on the Second Amendment, I hold that all 20,000+ gun laws in the United States are UNCONSTITUTIONAL because they infringe significantly on your RIGHT to self defense. Should I be lucky enough to actually WIN the election for President, my first official act will be to inform the agents of the entire executive branch of government that they will be dismissed from duty and prosecuted if they make any attempt to deprive anyone of any weapon, unless that person is in the process of committing a crime at that precise moment. MY idea of "Homeland Security" is for all 285 million Americans to purchase a gun if they don't already have one. If our country is exposed to a terrorist threat - I will hold a press conference and tell you how you can help to suppress the attack.

vote-smart.org

Will a libertarian step up and say "Yes, he's a nutcase, and it pisses me off because it discredits libertarianism." Or maybe you believe that the 2nd amendment grants the right for private citizens to own nukes? And that the nukes can only be taken away if the person is committing a crime "at that precise moment"?

(What if they commited a crime a couple of hours earlier? Then could we take away the criminal's nukes?)

[varwoche]

Some additional Badnarik quotes, in case the right-to-bear-nukes article wasn't sufficiently compelling. (Copied from the aforementioned thread for the sake of continuity.)

I would announce a special one-week session of Congress where all 535 members would be required to sit through a special version of my Constitution class. Once I was convinced that every member of Congress understood my interpretation of their very limited powers, I would insist that they restate their oath of office while being videotaped. Those videos could then be used as future evidence should they ever vote to violate the rights of Americans again.
vote-smart.org

The day I enter the Oval Office, I will give notice to the United Nations. Member nations would have one week to evacuate their offices in the UN building in New York. They would have seven days to box up their computers, their paper work, and family photos. At noon on the eighth day, after ensuring that the building was empty, I would personally detonate the explosive charges that would reduce the building to rubble. The same type of rubble we had to clean up after September 11th. I want to send a message around the world that United States foreign policy had changed dramatically, and unmistakably.
vote-smart.org

The purpose (and ONLY purpose) of our Constitution is to create a government that will protect our PROPERTY.
badnarik.org archive

How could Timothy McVeigh's Ryder truck knock down so much of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, while doing no damage to the building across the street except for a few broken windows? Doesn't that violate the laws of physics? How could the explosion of McVeigh's truck throw bricks and debris out into the street, once again, violating the laws of physics? What ever happened to all of the evidence from the Waco disaster that was being kept for “safe keeping” in the FBI offices in the Murrah Federal Building? THINK dammit! We may not know who blew up the building, or what their motivation was, but the government's version of the truth is completely implausible.
vote-smart

Last Saturday I became very excited when I received an eMail entitled “Hawaii Declares Independence?” that included a July 15th press release from the Kingdom of Hawai'i. I was, of course, somewhat skeptical so I did some preliminary research on the web and discovered www.hawaii-nation.org and several other references. My curiosity piqued, I decided to call Hawaii even though it was very early in the morning in the islands. I spoke to a man identified in the press release as the new Prime Minister and was told that a Declaration of (Hawaiian) Independence HAD been presented to the White House and United Nations recently. I was amazed and excited. Admittedly a little TOO excited, because I subsequently dispatched an eMail entitled “HAWAII DECLARES ITS INDEPENDENCE!”. Declaring your independence and having other agencies acknowledge that independence are two different things, and my enthusiasm caused me to blur that distinction. I realize now that it was only a small group of Hawaiian natives who made this declaration. It was not a proclamation by the state legislature as I allowed myself to believe. In other words, it is a bit premature for us to remove a star from the US flag.
vote-smart.org

[Noumenon]

The right to bear nukes argument is rather crazy, IMO. Badnarik claims to support national defense, yet what is national defense if individuals can destroy your entire country with nukes if they wish? He talks about "clear and present danger" justifying taking action against a bearer of arms, but anyone holding a nuke is a clear and present danger. You have to think "why would anyone want to build a nuke or aquire one?" It can't possibly be for peaceful purposes or self defense. It must be for reasons of terrorism or something.

I wish the LP had nominated someone more electable, like Aaron Russo or Gary Nolan. But for me, its either Badnarik or Michael Peroutka (Constitution Party). I'm still keeping Peroutka open for consideration, I might just vote for him. Even though he's not a libertarian, he would move this country towards more freedom at least.

[varwoche]

The right to bear nukes argument is rather crazy, IMO. Badnarik claims to support national defence, yet what is national defence if individuals can destroy your entire country with nukes if they wish? He talks about "clear and present danger" justifying taking action against a bearer of arms, but anyone holding a nuke is a clear and present danger. You have to think "why would anyone want to build a nuke or aquire one?" It can't possibly be for peaceful purposes or self defence. It must be for reasons of terrorism or something.

I wish the LP had nominated someone more electable, like Aaron Russo or Gary Nolan. But for me, its either Badnarik or Michael Peroutka (Constitution Party). I'm still keeping Peroutka open for consideration, I might just vote for him. Even though he's not a libertarian, he would move this country towards more freedom at least.

Bravo and thank you!

Sorry to drag past baggage with me, but I've been on a quest to find if there's such a thing as a moderate libertarian.

I suppose I should check out Peroutka before I annoint you though.

[Todd D.]

You have to keep in mind that the people who have the resources and the capital to actually aquire a nuclear weapon in America are not the ones that are going to want to nuke the country.

To me, arguing over the right to own nuclear weapons is like arguing over the right to buy a state. It's not going to happen.

[varwoche]

You have to keep in mind that the people who have the resources and the capital to actually aquire a nuclear weapon in America are not the ones that are going to want to nuke the country.

To me, arguing over the right to own nuclear weapons is like arguing over the right to buy a state. It's not going to happen.

That implies there are no rich crazy people, a proposition I'm not prepared to sign on to.

Even if you're right though, this does not negate the legitimacy of disceting a presidential candidate who in facts advocates such lunacy.

As well, Badnarik advocates right-to-bear-anything. Anyone is capable of brewing up a batch of ricin, for instance, or so I understand.

[STA]

You have to keep in mind that the people who have the resources and the capital to actually aquire a nuclear weapon in America are not the ones that are going to want to nuke the country.

To me, arguing over the right to own nuclear weapons is like arguing over the right to buy a state. It's not going to happen.

...but what if Bill Gates goes crazy?

[liberalist]

The purpose (and ONLY purpose) of our Constitution is to create a government that will protect our PROPERTY.

What is wrong with this? Looking at the history of the creation of the US consitution, and who wrote it, this seems a perfectly accurate intepretation of the consitution. THe original purpose of the consititution was to preserve the property rights of the elite, and Badnarik acknowledges that. If you have a problem with this statement your problem is with the consitution, not Badnarik. Read any history of the formation of the United States of America and it becomes pretty obvious that the fouding fathers were seeking to preserve their property rights from the excesses of government. Personally, I do not fully agree that this was a good thing, and I beleive the US consitution has many flaws because of this, however I fully agree with Badnarik's interpretation of the constitution.

[varwoche]

The purpose (and ONLY purpose) of our Constitution is to create a government that will protect our PROPERTY.

What is wrong with this? Looking at the history of the creation of the US consitution, and who wrote it, this seems a perfectly accurate intepretation of the consitution. THe original purpose of the consititution was to preserve the property rights of the elite, and Badnarik acknowledges that. If you have a problem with this statement your problem is with the consitution, not Badnarik. Read any history of the formation of the United States of America and it becomes pretty obvious that the fouding fathers were seeking to preserve their property rights from the excesses of government. Personally, I do not fully agree that this was a good thing, and I beleive the US consitution has many flaws because of this, however I fully agree with Badnarik's interpretation of the constitution.

What about the 1st amendment? Or how about the 13th? Or (chortle) the 16th?

It is not the "ONLY" purpose. (ONLY in all caps per Badnarik).

[Noumenon]

What about the 1st amendment? Or how about the 13th? Or (chortle) the 16th?

Free speech is a derivative of property rights. You have the right to do or say whatever you want on your own property, or if you own a newspaper/website/etc, with your property. You don't have the right to say or do what you want on other people's property. Same with freedom of religion.

I assume Badnarik meant the original Constitution, so amendments after 10 don't count. But abolishing slavery is protecting property rights, since according to libertarianism you own your body.

[varwoche]

What about the 1st amendment? Or how about the 13th? Or (chortle) the 16th?

Free speech is a derivative of property rights. You have the right to do or say whatever you want on your own property, or if you own a newspaper/website/etc, with your property. You don't have the right to say or do what you want on other people's property. Same with freedom of religion.

I assume Badnarik meant the original Constitution, so amendments after 10 don't count. But abolishing slavery is protecting property rights, since according to libertarianism you own your body.

No, he is not talking about the constitution in historical context. Nor does he explain the expanded libertarian definition of property.

[Rex Little]

I don't see where Badnarik is advocating a right to own a nuke. He says that the line is drawn at the point of clear and present danger, and as Noumenon points out, a nuke is a clear and present danger in the hands of anyone. (At least, anyone without a VERY stringent system of controls on its use, such as what supposedly exists on missile submarines.)

[senor boogie woogie]

Hola!

I love the Libertarian Party very much. I truly believe in about 95 percent of what they want to do with the USA.

1.) Abolishing income taxes.

2.) Not giving aid to any nation except for humanitarian reasons. No binding treaties or federations with any other nation. I do agree with the UN (opposite of libertarians) because it provides a sounding board for issues and peaceful sanctions to rougue regimes who invade nations and subjugate their own populations.

3.) Ending the war on drugs. Legalization of marijuana. Making people responsible for their own habits.

4.) Getting the government out of education, leaving this responsibility to local people.

I would personally like to see a conservative/libertarian movement happen in the USA, in favor of limited governement, allowing churches, local communities and families to tackle their own problems locally instead of globally.

Libertarians need to campaign like their philosophy, that is to elect people on the LOCAL level, grassroots efforts. This is where the party has its most successes, on county school boards, dog catcher, health inspector etc. Work some candidates up to mayor, state representitives and then national office.

Badnarik seems somewhat like a nutcase to me. It is a shame that Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, former Governor of N. Mexico Gary Johnson or another well known individual would come up and shake this election a bit.

Senor

[Rust]

The more important point I think is, how can anyone, Badnarik or not, claim to be for a free market and at the same time regulate Nuclear Weapons? The creation, the trade and the selling of nuclear weapons would be regulated. Moreover, to even be effective in "National Security", the buying of equipment pertaining to nuclear weapons would have to be monitored; invading privacy in the process.

Also, "clear and present danger" is a totally subjective definition. To me, a knife could be a clear and present danger.

[Noumenon]

The more important point I think is, how can anyone, Badnarik or not, claim to be for a free market and at the same time regulate Nuclear Weapons? The creation, the trade and the selling of nuclear weapons would be regulated.

Thats an excellent question. The free market is what happens when people are free from aggression and the imminent threat of aggression. Without that freedom, there is no truly free market. Building a nuke is an imminent threat of aggression, and a huge one at that. There is no way a free market can operate under an imminent threat of nuclear annihilation. Supporting the "right" to bear nukes, in my view, is anti-freedom and anti-free markets. It is akin to saying people have the right to threaten people with aggression by pointing guns at them. Obviously, a free market could not long survive in an environment where everyone could do that.

Moreover, to even be effective in "National Security", the buying of equipment pertaining to nuclear weapons would have to be monitored; invading privacy in the process.

I don't know about that. I think it would be pretty obvious if someone was trying to build a nuke. I could be wrong, but I don't think thats something you can do in your basement. The simpler alternative for someone who wants a nuke is to acquire one off the black market (I believe there are about 200 nuclear warheads and 50 suitcase nukes unnaccounted for from the former USSR). I believe that the government has the right to monitor our borders and what crosses them. I'm am not opposed to public property outright, and if one considers borders to be public property, then the right to prevent nukes from coming into our country makes sense.

Also, "clear and present danger" is a totally subjective definition. To me, a knife could be a clear and present danger.

It is subjective to some degree, but not entirely. Someone pointing a gun at you while threatening violence is a clear and present danger, no doubt about it. Someone pointing a gun at a tree while not threatening anyone is definitely not a clear and present danger. There is a gray area in between, but logic can be applied to determine what is and what is not a clear and present danger. Logically, that knife is not a clear and present danger. Knives can be used for a million legitimate purposes, from cutting food to self defense. There is no logical reason to assume its very possession by someone is a threat of aggression on your rights.

[Rust]

Thats an excellent question. The free market is what happens when people are free from aggression and the imminent threat of aggression. Without that freedom, there is no truly free market. Building a nuke is an imminent threat of aggression, and a huge one at that. There is no way a free market can operate under an imminent threat of nuclear annihilation. Supporting the "right" to bear nukes, in my view, is anti-freedom and anti-free markets. It is akin to saying people have the right to threaten people with aggression by pointing guns at them. Obviously, a free market could not long survive in an environment where everyone could do that.

I agree that nukes would be a threat, in my opinion they should be regulated. But, isn't a free market (as in a 'laissez faire society') by definition, free from any regulations? If you regulate nukes, then you don't have a free market.

I don't know about that. I think it would be pretty obvious if someone was trying to build a nuke. I could be wrong, but I don't think thats something you can do in your basement. The simpler alternative for someone who wants a nuke is to acquire one off the black market (I believe there are about 200 nuclear warheads and 50 suitcase nukes unnaccounted for from the former USSR). I believe that the government has the right to monitor our borders and what crosses them. I'm am not opposed to public property outright, and if one considers borders to be public property, then the right to prevent nukes from coming into our country makes sense.

Agreed. The creation of a nuke would most likely be very obvious. But this scenario still applies to other weapons. Chemical weapons, along with many other bombs can be easily created in the "basement".

It is subjective to some degree, but not entirely. Someone pointing a gun at you while threatening violence is a clear and present danger, no doubt about it. Someone pointing a gun at a tree while not threatening anyone is definitely not a clear and present danger. There is a grey area in between, but logic can be applied to determine what is and what is not a clear and present danger. Logically, that knife is not a clear and present danger. Knives can be used for a million legitimate purposes, from cutting food to self defence. There is no logical reason to assume its very possession by someone is a threat of aggression on your rights.

To what degree is it objective? Because a knife has legitimate purposes? A nuclear weapon could have legitimate purposes as well.

Wouldn't an individual be free to protect his or her country? Currently a nuclear armament grants a great deal of protection to the U.S. Hence, any person that wants to aid the protection of the 'American Dream' could invest in nukes, nay should!

As well as other scientific purposes...

[Noumenon]

I agree that nukes would be a threat, in my opinion they should be regulated. But, isn't a free market (as in a 'laissez faire society') by definition, free from any regulations? If you regulate nukes, then you don't have a free market.

No, by definition a free market is one that is free from aggression. In most other cases, regulation would be considered aggression. For example, a minimum wage regulation forces the the employer to pay a certain amount in wages, thus it is aggression. A regulation preventing people from building or acquiring nukes is defensive, because owning a nuke is an aggression.

Agreed. The creation of a nuke would most likely be very obvious. But this scenario still applies to other weapons. Chemical weapons, along with many other bombs can be easily created in the "basement".

But chemical/bio weapons being created in people's basement isn't something we can do much about anyway. Ricin, for example, can be made by amatuers from castor beans.

To what degree is it objective? Because a knife has legitimate purposes? A nuclear weapon could have legitimate purposes as well.

Wouldn't an individual be free to protect his or her country? Currently a nuclear armament grants a great deal of protection to the U.S. Hence, any person that wants to aid the protection of the 'American Dream' could invest in nukes, nay should!

It is illogical to believe anyone claiming they were building a nuke to defend his country. We already have enough to blow up the world several times over. There are also reasons I could make up for me pointing a gun at your head, but it would be illogical to believe me. For example, I could claim I was just showing you what its like to look down the barrel of a gun. Surely a legitimate purpose. That doesn't mean pointing guns at people should be legal.

[varwoche]

I don't see where Badnarik is advocating a right to own a nuke. He says that the line is drawn at the point of clear and present danger, and as Noumenon points out, a nuke is a clear and present danger in the hands of anyone. (At least, anyone without a VERY stringent system of controls on its use, such as what supposedly exists on missile submarines.)

Please re-read the original post. Badnarik CLEARLY advocates right-to-bear-nukes.

[Rex Little]

From the original post:

If so, what about nuclear weapons?
Is there a line and if so where is it?

This is an excellent question. It is most easily answered by analyzing a person wearing a revolver in a holster - a very low-tech choice of self-defence. Does a person have a right to wear the holster? Yes - of course. Does a person have a right to extract the revolver from the holster? Yes - assuming that they do not subsequently try to make an "unauthorized withdrawal" from a bank or someone's wallet. Assuming you were minding your own business in the first place, does a person have the right to point their revolver at you? No - absolutely not. You are not required to wait until another person shoots at you before you take action to defend your life or property. The line that has been crossed is known as a "clear and present danger", and it exists when there would be no opportunity to react if and when the person decides to pull the trigger.

Emphasis mine. Since a nuclear weapon provides no such opportunity, it clearly crosses the line that Badnarik defines.

[varwoche]

Since a nuclear weapon provides no such opportunity, it clearly crosses the line that Badnarik defines.

Give me a break. In reponse to a specific question about nukes, Badnarik answered:

my first official act will be to inform the agents of the entire executive branch of government that they will be dismissed from duty and prosecuted if they make any attempt to deprive anyone of any weapon, unless that person is in the process of committing a crime at that precise moment

If you want to argue that Badnarik is not advocating right-to-bear-nukes in this statement, be my guest.