...snip...
It was never a simple "no". It's always a complex topic, and a common attack vector for others to 'box in' libertarian ideology. The core principle is that, even though one can show that the risks are greater that any particular group of people could aquire a WMD, the current state of international meddling in other culture's affairs contributes to the growth of those same groupls.
...snip...
But it was a "no." The reasons are well meaning but ultimately people like b2c and Fred will allow death of innocents before regulation of dangerous materials.
Fortunately it doesn't matter. People don't sit around passively waiting for bombs to go off - they, rightly, pro-actively organise society in ways that make explosions less likely.
And the same would happen in a libertarian society, despite the objections of an absolutist minority. I'm not going to say that b2c or Fred are wrong, because they are not wrong from a principled perspective. They are just not pragmatic. A mostly libertarian society is still much more free than what exists, and is one major reason that the framers of the US Constitution advocated for that document
despite it being a relative centralization of political power as compared to the Articles of Confederation. Precisely because under the Articles the states bickered like EU member states are now bickering over the sovereign debt crisis over there. They both seek a perfect libertarian society, wherein the state is actually small enough to drown in a bathtub should the need arise. Much more realisticly is that the drive towards more individual freedom and personal responsibility begins to approach a condition of diminishing returns. At which point, most practical libertarians are satisfied with the achievements and leave the perfectionists to battle with the "social democrats" in the political realm while the vast majority returns to simply ignoring politics and pursuing their own personal interests. That really is the end goal.
For example, sales of ammonium nitrate based fertiliser are regulated in Ireland and as a result, car bombings went from several per day to one every 5 or so years. To argue that we have no right to regulate is pointless. We do regulate because we don't like car bombs and won't stop unless a better way is found. Adn for the record, Irish sectarian warfare is home grown. No international meddling needed
You have cited this before, but corrolation still isn't causation, even in Ireland. The subject is too complex to attribute to a single regulation, and without even checking, I'm pretty sure that the political issues that motivated much of the IRA were resolved around that same time, were they not?
The same applies to intellectual property. We create it because it makes life better with things like branded goods, patented research and movies. We create IP laws because we want the good things that come with them - and we won't stop unless a better way is found. Arguing we have no right to do so is pointless - no-one has the right to stop us.
No one has the
power to stop you, which is not the same thing. The framers recognized the need to incentivize creative works, and established both the 'authority' of Congress to establish a term limited copyright monopoly but also the Library of Congress (and thus the exceptions that libraries and schools enjoy) as well as explicitly rejecting the notion that copyright was a natural right.