Do you remember Colin Powell waving that tube of anthrax around at the U.N.? Or Bush Sr.’s speech where he brandished his bag of crack cocaine that was sold right across the street from the White House (once government agents managed, with some difficulty, to lure the seller there)?
Gee, why weren’t Bush and Powell arrested?
A useful talking point: all laws against the mere possession of certain objects (guns, drugs, pornography, etc.) are a violation of human equality, because they inherently apply only to some people and not others (since the others – the government – have to retain possession of these items after they confiscate them, in order to use them as evidence against the original possessors).
I’m not sure that’s necessary – hypothetically, they could destroy all such items after photographing and testing them to determine exact chemical composition, fingerprints, etc. The weapons are the most significant of the items you name, since those are necessary for the state to possess and prevent others from possessing.
they could destroy all such items after photographing and testing them to determine exact chemical composition, fingerprints, etc.
If the state can possess them long enough to do those things, why can’t a private citizen?
I think sometimes statists say they can – e.g. having a day where everybody comes in and turns in their guns and drugs for food coupons. A better idea than “no human should ever possess X” (which would be logically contradictory if they then started possessing X) would be something like “possession of X should be minimized”. Then you could say some individuals can temporarily possess X in order to destroy it or prosecute those who have it, etc. It reminds me of arguments by minimal-statists that a state should exist in order to “minimize aggression”, the implication being that no aggression is not practical.
What if a PDA outlawed magical buttons which destroy humanity? Supposing that such magical buttons are so dangerous that nobody should have them, would it be a valid in your opinion for some people to find them and destroy them? Or would that be contradictory?
some individuals can temporarily possess X in order to destroy it or prosecute those who have it
Sure, but then they’d in consistency have to allow others to temporarily possess X so long as they too were doing so in an attempt to destroy it.
What if a PDA outlawed magical buttons which destroy humanity?
I think it would be ok to find them and destroy them. All I’m saying is that for any n, be it long or short, they couldn’t legitimately hold on to them for n amount of time and still forbid others to hold on to them for n amount of time.
Even if they’re only possessing things to destroy them, it would seem to imply that they had the right of possession. I don’t think one can rightfully destroy without having the ability to rightfully possess. If one groups has this right and another does not then there is a natural inequality there.
Using any talking point about equality or inequality is a good talking point in my opinion
This might appeal to an egalitarian.
I’m a radical egalitarian. At least in regards to Lockean equality of authority.
So are you saying that the rule should be changed from “citizens should not be allowed to possess X” to “citizens should be allowed to possess X if and only if they are actively pursuing its safe disposal”? What about, “citizens should not be allowed to possess X if they did not acquire it for the sole purpose of safely disposing of it”? That would seem to help dodge the predictable “Well why would they have it in the first place?” objection…
Yes, officer, I was safely disposing of it by rolling it up in these little white papers and then burning it.