flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (01/03/85)
[] From: faustus@ucbcad.UUCP Wayne > 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? [emphasis added --pvt] The problem is this: is such a government claiming a special, monopoly priveledge for itself on the right to decide when *non-initiative* force may be used, as well? If not, it is no government. It will allow the existence of competing rights-enforcement agencies over which it claims no special authority. Now, you might want to call all such agencies "governments", but then you are stretching the word "govt." too far. If it does claim such a monopoly priveledge, then it must (at least be prepared to) initiate force, and therefore cannot be a *libertarian* govt. For it is then claiming that it may get rid of other, competing, rights- enforcement organizations. If those competitors only use force in retaliatory ways, then to forcibly disband them is to initiate force. Therefore, "libertarian govt." is an oxymoron. Now, if all you meant to defend was govt., not libertarian govt., I have no argument. (Walter Wego would, but this is me speaking.) --Paul V Torek, umcp-cs!flink (until 1/11, then ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047 )