Recently I got into a discussion with what seemed like a statist.
We got into the subject of guns and self defence. I stated that it's my right to have a gun, in order to defend myself. If it's morally right for a so called police to have a gun, then it's morally right for me as well.
He then played the atom-bomb card. "So where's the line? Why stop with guns? Is everyone allowed to have their own atombomb? Do you have the right to acquire an atom bomb as well?."
Now this is ridiculous because an atombomb can't arguably be used in self defense without killing lots of innocent people as well. And without governments the atom bomb wouldn't exist to begin with. So in a way it's a highly hypothetical scenario, and those are generally useless to discuss.
I asked him "what hell would I need an atom bomb for?!"
And I have to admit what he did then got me cornered, because he simply took it back to argument from morality.
"Yes but are you allowed to have an atom bomb, is it your right??"
Me: Yes.
So guys I'd appreciate some help here. How is it morally logically consistent, coming from the volountarist/scientifically viewpoint of morality (Stefan Molyneux style) to say that it's ok to have a gun, but not an atom bomb? (Not that I said that)
If you say that everyone has a right to their own gun, doesn't that also mean, if one is logically consistent, that atomb bombs are ok as well? Mustn't everyone be allowed to own their own atomb bomb if they'd like, and no one has the right to stop them from constructing one?
If it's true that atom bombs are OK, sure that makes me a bit nervous. However, it makes me more nervous that some have the right to have atom bombs, and some have not, as is currently the case. Maybe it's not a right to own an atom bomb, but it's not anyone else's right to come take it away from you? Two wrongs doesn't make one right.