The Non-Aggression Principle and Weapons Ownership

by David W. Masten

One of the tough problems in the practical application of the Non-Aggression Principle is that of owning certain classes of weapons. Most libertarians can agree that a handgun or rifle can be legitimately owned and possessed by any adult. When the weapon in question has much greater potency and area of affect, libertarians start to disagree on whether the mere possession of that weapon constitutes aggression.  The principled, non-aggressive answer is that the weapon owner must be able to provide restitution to the injured parties in the event of an accident.

The Disagreement

There are basically two positions in discussing ownership of weapons. The owner's rights position holds that as long as the weapon is not used coercively, then an individual has the right to posses any weapon, including a thermonuclear warhead. The neighbor's rights position says that some weapons are too destructive, and thus a person who owns one is infringing on the rights of his neighbors.

For many, both positions are untenable. The neighbors of a forgetful or careless man owning a nuclear device cannot continue living on their own land wondering if the careless man is playing around with the arming switch. How rational can the neighbors be when faced with the knowledge that at some point they and their community will be annihilated by an accident? This does not even include the very real possibility of the owner using the weapon to commit aggression. On the other extreme, if there is some law against owning one weapon, then the same logic can be used to disarm everyone of every weapon or possible weapon. The mere act of creating such a law is in itself aggression.

Confusing matters even more is the defense agency that may have a legitimate need for weapons of mass destruction. A licensing scheme may help ensure that a a defense agency can have weapons of mass destruction while keeping individuals from acquiring such weapons, but most licensing schemes give political power to those who grant licenses. This is not desirable as it will lead to corruption, which is also in itself aggression.

Is there a principled position based on non-aggression that limits the possession of certain weapons while allowing individuals to defend themselves against threats both domestic and international? There is a market based solution that fits the non-aggression principle. The solution is dependent on restitution.

Restitution

It is thought among market-anarchists that accidents and crimes will be dealt with solely through restitution, i.e. civil law. An offender, whether criminal or just accident prone, will be tried and once guilt has been determined, will then be made to pay for the damages caused, plus legal fees, and any other reasonable costs incurred to make up for the incident.  This method of justice has been shown to be in complete agreement with the non-aggression principle^*.

Some accidental situations are such that the guilty party may not be able to make restitution. For example, a driver losing control of his car, slamming into a group of pedestrians, and killing two people may not be able to afford restitution.  It is for these very cases that most people have insurance.  Insurance is also a way of vetting an individual or business. A good automobile policy means the policy holder is a good driver, has a lot of assets, or for some cars both. The insurance policy indicates that the driver is a manageable risk.

Like the automobile driver, the weapon owner would be expected to be able to provide restitution in the event of an accident. For many weapons, the weapons owner would be able to provide full restitution through personal savings or by working the debt off. For other weapons, an insurance policy would be needed to be able to cover the costs of the weapon accidentally going off. An insurance company would then require a certain level of assurance that they will not have to pay out on the policy. For some weapons, this might include several books worth of maintenance schedules, procedures, risk analysis, and documented security systems. For other weapons it might be a one page agreement to only use the weapon in certain locations and a certificate from a weapons safety course.

Conclusion

Certain weapons, especially those of mass destruction, can impose unreasonable costs on others just by the weapon's existence. On the flip side of the coin, any attempt to outlaw such weapons is itself an act of aggression.  By applying the concepts of restitution in a manner similar to other potentially dangerous yet common objects such as automobiles, even weapons of mass destruction could be legitimately possessed without causing unreasonable costs to others. Insurance companies would assist in providing assurances to neighbors that the risk of a destructive accident is suitably minimized. The exact weapons, costs, and insurance requirements can only be determined by the market. The market will naturally restrict weapons ownership to those who can be responsible with them, without creating arbitrary and aggressive rules. 

Notes:

* The Market for Liberty, Linda and Morris Tannehill, Chapter 9 "Dealing With Coercion"

July 9, 2002