flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul Torek) (12/30/84)
[Walter Wego was right] From: mwm@ea.UUCP (<mike) >No, libertarianism is not anarchy. What differentiates a libertarian >government from an anarchy, and indeed from any statist government, is >that a libertarian government does *not* have the right to initiate >force. It may have a monopoly on force, and on being able to decide >when it will be used, but it may only use force in response to force. The following phrases in you reply are crucial: 1. "does not have [sic--you mean claim] the right to initiate force" 2. "have a monopoly on force, and on being able to decide when it will be used" 1 contradicts 2. QED. From: 87064023@sdcc3.UUCP ({|lit) > Government is characterized by a monopoly of legitimate force in an > area... > ... We do not condone the initial use of > force to solve problems. John Wallner But such a monopoly cannot be obtained without initiation of force. QED. From: stewart@ihldt.UUCP (R. J. Stewart) >As for consistency, libertarian ethics hold that no one has the right to >*initiate* force or fraud against another. ... A government that is >restricted to this role is not contrary to libertarian principles. A government so restricted would not be a government: it would have to allow competing (shall we call them) rights-enforcement organizations to exist, and would therefore not have the requisite monopoly of force. QED. From: J. Bashinsk>i< ...!ucbvax!bashinsk%ucbcory > A GOVERNMENT is an entity which reserves all use of force to itself, > and which uses force to prevent others from using force without > its authorization. > A LIBERTARIAN GOVERNMENT is a government which uses force only in > response to the use of force or fraud by others... ...and is therefore a contradiction in terms. To prevent (or be willing to prevent) other (rights-enforcement) organizations from using force would require the initiation of force. QED. Hoping it's finally sinking in, Paul V Torek, umcp-cs!flink (until 1/11, then back to ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047 )
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (12/31/84)
> From: J. Bashinsk>i< ...!ucbvax!bashinsk%ucbcory > > A GOVERNMENT is an entity which reserves all use of force to itself, > > and which uses force to prevent others from using force without > > its authorization. > > A LIBERTARIAN GOVERNMENT is a government which uses force only in > > response to the use of force or fraud by others... > > ...and is therefore a contradiction in terms. To prevent (or be willing > to prevent) other (rights-enforcement) organizations from using force > would require the initiation of force. QED. No... Take the following basis for law: no entity, except the government, may initiate force, period. Maybe we will allow the government to initiate force, but even if we don't we can still have a consistent system. There are a lot of police around whose job is to respond with force to people who initiate force. Where's the problem? Wayne
renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (01/02/85)
>> A GOVERNMENT is an entity which reserves all use of force to itself, >> and which uses force to prevent others from using force without >> its authorization. >> A LIBERTARIAN GOVERNMENT is a government which uses force only in >> response to the use of force or fraud by others... > ...and is therefore a contradiction in terms. To prevent (or be willing > to prevent) other (rights-enforcement) organizations from using force > would require the initiation of force. QED. > -- Paul V Torek (flink@umcp-cs) Let's see... a libertarian government is supposed to: 1. use no force against those who do not themselves use force or fraud. 2. have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. The second item needs to be qualified slightly. Citizens should be entitled to use force to protect lives and property when the police are not available and the circumstances do not admit of delay. But when there's time, they are expected to call the cops. A protection agency should have the same right to force as does its clients; that is, only in an emergency, when the police are not available. An agency which exceeds these limits on the use of force will be shut down by the government. Obviously this agency has used force, so there's no problem with the point #1; the monopoly is maintained, and there's point #2. There's no inconsistency here. And this certainly isn't anarchy. Is this what Paul's been waiting for? Scott Renner {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner
flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul Torek) (01/07/85)
In article <29200183@uiucdcs.UUCP> renner@uiucdcs.UUCP writes: >A protection agency should have the same right to force as does its >clients; that is, only in an emergency, when the police are not >available. An agency which exceeds these limits on the use of force >will be shut down by the government. Obviously this agency has used >force, so there's no problem with the point #1; the monopoly is >maintained, and there's point #2. > >There's no inconsistency here. And this certainly isn't anarchy. >Is this what Paul's been waiting for? Nope, sorry. The inconsistency remains. As long as the agency uses force only in retaliatory ways, it has a right (by libertarian std's) to do so, and therefore the govt. has no right to stop it. The govern- ment you describe is not consistent w/ libertarianism. QED. "I love it when a plan comes together!" --the self-satisfied iconoclast, Paul V. Torek, (moving to) wucs!wucec1!pvt1047
mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (01/07/85)
I do so like being quoted out of context... From flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul Torek) Wed Dec 31 16:00:00 1969 > From: mwm@ea.UUCP (<mike) > >No, libertarianism is not anarchy. What differentiates a libertarian > >government from an anarchy, and indeed from any statist government, is > >that a libertarian government does *not* have the right to initiate > >force. It may have a monopoly on force, and on being able to decide > >when it will be used, but it may only use force in response to force. > > The following phrases in you reply are crucial: > 1. "does not have [sic--you mean claim] the right to initiate force" > 2. "have a monopoly on force, and on being able to decide when it > will be used" > > 1 contradicts 2. QED. Paul, read the part of the last sentence that you neglected to quote: "but it may only use force in response to force." Poof, your contradiction vanishes. There is a problem, thougth: no government can have a monopoly on force, unless it has total and complete control over all activities of it's citizens. The best it can claim is an overwhelming superiority of force. But that's all it really needs. > Hoping it's finally sinking in, > Paul V Torek, umcp-cs!flink No, Paul, I don't think you're getting it yet :-). <mike New address: from ea!mwm to ucbvax!ucbjade!mwm New interface: from notes to news (sob)
cjk@ccice2.UUCP (Chris Kreilick) (01/09/85)
> [Walter Wego was right] > > From: mwm@ea.UUCP (<mike) > >No, libertarianism is not anarchy. What differentiates a libertarian > >government from an anarchy, and indeed from any statist government, is > >that a libertarian government does *not* have the right to initiate > >force. It may have a monopoly on force, and on being able to decide > >when it will be used, but it may only use force in response to force. > > The following phrases in you reply are crucial: > 1. "does not have [sic--you mean claim] the right to initiate force" > 2. "have a monopoly on force, and on being able to decide when it > will be used" > > 1 contradicts 2. QED. Paul. Are your shoes too tight? Answer soon. -- fool slapper
flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul Torek) (01/09/85)
I do so like people quoted in context claiming otherwise... In article <621> mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA writes: >From flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul Torek) Wed Dec 31 16:00:00 1969 >> From: mwm@ea.UUCP (<mike) >> >No, libertarianism is not anarchy. What differentiates a libertarian >> >government from an anarchy, and indeed from any statist government, is >> >that a libertarian government does *not* have the right to initiate >> >force. It may have a monopoly on force, and on being able to decide >> >when it will be used, but it may only use force in response to force. >> >> The following phrases in you reply are crucial: >> 1. "does not have [sic--you mean claim] the right to initiate force" >> 2. "have a monopoly on force, and on being able to decide when it >> will be used" >> >> 1 contradicts 2. QED. > >Paul, read the part of the last sentence that you neglected to quote: >"but it may only use force in response to force." Poof, your >contradiction vanishes. Fancy magic you have there, too bad it doesn't work. Using force only in response to force is not enough to maintain the monopoly character that makes a government a government, as opposed to being just one protection agency among many. So 1 does contadict 2. QED. I love it when they try to escape the grip of logic! >There is a problem, thougth: no government can have a monopoly on force, >unless it has total and complete control over all activities of it's citizens. >The best it can claim is an overwhelming superiority of force. But that's >all it really needs. Sorry, you're wrong. Governments don't exactly need a monopoly on force, they need a monopoly on the *right* to decide when it may be used. A superiority of force is not enough; there are situations where a group has that yet we would be reluctant to call it a government. Besides, due to competition, no group that abides by libertarian principles could guarantee (or even expect) to have an overwhelming superiority of force. Hoping it's finally sinking in, Paul V Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047 (please send any replies to this (new) address, not the sender's)
mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (01/11/85)
From flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul Torek) Wed Dec 31 16:00:00 1969 >>There is a problem, though: no government can have a monopoly on force, >>unless it has total and complete control over all activities of it's citizens. >>The best it can claim is an overwhelming superiority of force. But that's >>all it really needs. > >Sorry, you're wrong. Governments don't exactly need a monopoly on force, >they need a monopoly on the *right* to decide when it may be used. A >superiority of force is not enough; there are situations where a group has >that yet we would be reluctant to call it a government. Besides, due to >competition, no group that abides by libertarian principles could guarantee >(or even expect) to have an overwhelming superiority of force. Fair enough - governments get to decide when force may be used. Of course, if the *don't* have a majority of the available force, they may find themselves displaced. Likewise, if you have an overwhelming superiority of force, you can be the government any time you decide you want to be. >Fancy magic you have there, too bad it doesn't work. Using force only in >response to force is not enough to maintain the monopoly character that >makes a government a government, as opposed to being just one protection >agency among many. So 1 does contadict 2. QED. Hold on, now you are contradicting yourself. First, you say that a government only needs the right to decide when force may be used. Now you claim that they also have to use force other than that needed to enforce that right. Would you kindly point out what others uses a government must make of force to be a government? BTW, a government is a protection racket (you have the right to not employ an agency, hence the term racket). It just happens to be the strongest one in it's area. <mike
rjc@snow.UUCP (R.caley) (01/12/85)
>No, libertarianism is not anarchy. What differentiates a libertarian >government from an anarchy, and indeed from any statist government, is >that a libertarian government does *not* have the right to initiate >force. It may have a monopoly on force, and on being able to decide >when it will be used, but it may only use force in response to force. Why do people associate anarchism with violence... Anarchists want to minimise the interference with the freedom of the individual from government **and** other individuals.That is you should not do something which unfairly restricts the freedom of annother. Hitting (shooting,stabbing...) someone sure as hell restricts them :-) The dodgey bit is "unfairly" most right wing anarchists beleave in free trade and hence in competition in the market place,and if I make a profit I must reduce your chance of doing so and this brings up the idea of monopolies and so on This is all very shakey since it relies on each persons interpretation of fair. This is all based on the idea (which someone brought up on the net) that Right & wrong are not fixed but depend on the individual concerned.This is my belief and I have never seen a good argument to the contrary (if we discount religion and such which are not open to argument).If anyone does have a real argument in favor of a universal set of moral standards please post it (no dogmatic "This is correct because {Jesus;God;Karl(or Harpo:-) Marx;my mother} said so" please - post these to net.religion.{xtian;all;marxist;me} ) Given that morals are not fixed,no one has the right to tell me that what I am doing is "bad" without showing me that it harms someone elses freedom.Hence moral laws (pornography,drugs,prostitution,vagrancy....) have no place since if I wish to get high on caffine (or even (yeuch) tobacco) then why shouldn't I (if I don't brieath smoke over others hence removing their right *not* to smoke)?The only excuse for drug laws (for example -similaly for the others) is to stop the hoodlems who exploit others addictions (addmitedly these people are very wrong in most peoples book) but if the drugs wern't illegal then they couldn't survive anyway - how many cigarette pushers do you know? Well that lot should stir up someones typeing finger (it's better than working isn't it?) :-) -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- "In the beginning was a flame ...... " Paul Kantner. .......... mcvax!ukc!flame!ubu!snow!rjc [ Any opinions in the above crawled in while I wasn't looking ]
nrh@inmet.UUCP (01/14/85)
>***** inmet:net.politics / umcp-cs!flink / 9:38 pm Jan 6, 1985 >In article <29200183@uiucdcs.UUCP> renner@uiucdcs.UUCP writes: >>A protection agency should have the same right to force as does its >>clients; that is, only in an emergency, when the police are not >>available. An agency which exceeds these limits on the use of force >>will be shut down by the government. Obviously this agency has used >>force, so there's no problem with the point #1; the monopoly is >>maintained, and there's point #2. >> >>There's no inconsistency here. And this certainly isn't anarchy. >>Is this what Paul's been waiting for? > >Nope, sorry. The inconsistency remains. As long as the agency uses >force only in retaliatory ways, it has a right (by libertarian std's) >to do so, and therefore the govt. has no right to stop it. The govern- >ment you describe is not consistent w/ libertarianism. QED. Excuse me, but our government NOW allows some use of force under some circumstances -- between parent and child, for example. Does that make it "not a government" because it is not enforcing a monopoly of force within its borders? Does the inconsistency you seem to see have any consequences? I'd say it does -- it probably shows to be incorrect the original definition of "government". That stipulated, where's the inconsistency? Remember, you're supposed to use "QED" only when the proof is all there, and I notice that there's no quote about the "libertarian" definition of government. By the way, if you do decide to reprint the quote, please also reprint its source, and the quote from renner, above, so that EVERYBODY can see that you're merely arguing that one libertarian used "government" in a way distinct from the way another used it. Never was it more obvious why Thoreau said that "consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" -- as near as I can tell, you're ignoring the real points of libertarianism and "sniping on the boarders". This would not be inappropriate were libertarians promising utopia, or proposing a new mathematics, but seems a singular waste of time when discussing politics (of course, that's probably what politics is for). If this is what made you the "self-satisfied iconoclast", your self must be remarkably easy to satisfy.
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (01/15/85)
> Never was it more obvious why Thoreau said that "consistency is the > hobgoblin of little minds" -- ... Actually, it was Emerson who... uh, never mind. --JoSH