esk@wucs.UUCP (Walter Wego) (12/12/84)
[] From: stewart@ihldt.UUCP (R. J. Stewart) > Remember, LIBERTARIANISM IS NOT ANARCHY. Remeber, TRUE LIBERTARIANISM *IS* ANARCHISM, as I proved before. The definition of government is that it claims a monopoly on the right to decide who may use force when. No organization has a right to do this; there must be free competition between protective agencies/associations. From: danw@oliven.UUCP (danw) [Subject: libertarian army] > ... system could deter Soviet aggression. We would be able > to destroy 10 or 20 major russian cities, killing tens of > millions of people. All this without being a day to day > threat to their homeland. Oh wonderful, kill tens of millions of innocent people just because they have the misfortune of being ruled by aggressive leaders!!!??!! This is a libertarian's respect for rights??!! And for those who think it is all right to *threaten* (bluffing) such indiscriminate murder, do you not see that threats can cause harm to innocents too? Retaliation is only acceptable against aggressors, and I mean *individuals*. CONSISTENCY, ANYONE??? Last call for consistency! wALTER wEGO c/o ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047 Please send any mail directly to this address, not the sender's. Thanks.
mwm@ea.UUCP (12/14/84)
/***** ea:net.politics / wucs!esk / 3:01 am Dec 12, 1984 */
[]
From: stewart@ihldt.UUCP (R. J. Stewart)
> Remember, LIBERTARIANISM IS NOT ANARCHY.
Remeber, TRUE LIBERTARIANISM *IS* ANARCHISM, as I proved before. The
definition of government is that it claims a monopoly on the right to
decide who may use force when. No organization has a right to do this;
there must be free competition between protective agencies/associations.
CONSISTENCY, ANYONE??? Last call for consistency!
wALTER wEGO
c/o ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047
Please send any mail directly to this address, not the sender's. Thanks.
/* ---------- */
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.
As for consistency, you can't get that from a system that tries to be fair
while dealing with people :-).
<mikefaustus@ucbcad.UUCP (12/14/84)
> > Remember, LIBERTARIANISM IS NOT ANARCHY. > > Remeber, TRUE LIBERTARIANISM *IS* ANARCHISM, as I proved before. The > definition of government is that it claims a monopoly on the right to > decide who may use force when. No organization has a right to do this; > there must be free competition between protective agencies/associations. I guess it depends upon what basic principles you adopt. There are lots of people who call themselves libertarians around who don't seem to be anarchists. > > ... system could deter Soviet aggression. We would be able > > to destroy 10 or 20 major russian cities, killing tens of > > millions of people. All this without being a day to day > > threat to their homeland. > > Oh wonderful, kill tens of millions of innocent people just because they > have the misfortune of being ruled by aggressive leaders!!!??!! This is > a libertarian's respect for rights??!! And for those who think it is all > right to *threaten* (bluffing) such indiscriminate murder, do you not see > that threats can cause harm to innocents too? Retaliation is only > acceptable against aggressors, and I mean *individuals*. I know, why don't we hire Superman to go and beat up those nasty Soviet leaders? What, you mean we're talking about real life??? No fair... Sure it would be nice if we could threaten only the leaders of the USSR, but this isn't any kind of deterrent. Some innocent people always have to be in danger, and there's not much you can do about it. (Of course, maybe you should go to te USSR and try to convert the Soviets to anarchy/libertarianism...) Wayne