laura@l5.uucp (Laura Creighton) (09/23/85)
The issue of national defence (defense to some of you!) is one that divides libertarians. My opinions are very different than JoSH's in this area. I think that the state is necessary. I think that the state should be responsible for only one thing -- the defence of the rights of citizens. This implies both internal and external defence -- the state is responsible for providing a legal code which defines what the rights are, and which imposes penalties for trangressing against those rights. What i do not want is full time (career) civil servants. There undoubtably are people who would make good full time Judges, policemen and law makers but there are far too many who are not. Therefore I propose limiting how long one can work for the state to 2 terms of (say) 5 years each. This will mean that there is a need for a great turnover of state employees. There is no such thing as a free lunch, folks, so I think that the price that citizens of libertaria will have to pay to have their rights respected and a small state is compulsory work for the state for one term. This does not mean that one must work as an infantry soldier, of course -- you can be a judge or a mayor or an elected official or a secretary or a programmer. Do not expect the salary to be good, however. This article has been very brief. I have thought about this a lot though and in some detail. A great deal needs to be worked out. I invite comments and brainstorming. -- Laura Creighton (note new address!) sun!l5!laura (that is ell-five, not fifteen) l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa
josh@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (J Storrs Hall) (09/25/85)
In article <145@l5.uucp> laura@l5.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes: >I think that the state is necessary. I think that the state should be >responsible for only one thing -- the defence of the rights of citizens. There are two interpretations of the phrase, "national defense". One is, defense OF the nation; the other, defense AGAINST nations. The one with which we need be concerned is surely the latter? Why must there be nations in the first place? All that is obviously necessary is that there be legitimate organizations of sufficient scope and capability to handle any probable threats to rights and liberty. I do not see why such organizations need to be identified with geographic territory, or be monopolies, or to have master-slave relationships between the organizations protecting one from nations, and those protecting one from burglars. >... I think that the price that >citizens of libertaria will have to pay to have their rights respected and >a small state is compulsory work for the state for one term. ... >Laura Creighton Compulsory service in defense is not necessarily a bad idea: there are precedents, ie Switzerland, and rationales, to wit: The physical defense of a territory is the one activity which can have such an overriding importance as to transcend all other activities. Furthermore, defense can be of such a nature that *all* available manpower is necessary to the task. Under such circumstances, the need for a market to apportion the goals of social production vanishes; everything goes to "the fight". Even the need for freedom (momentarily) vanishes; if the fight does not succeed, you're dead. (There are some problems with this rationale, but I'll leave them for the moment.) However, *even if you insist on a minimal State*, I cannot accept the idea of nonmilitary service. a) it is slavery. b) Robert Poole has made a career of showing that *whatever* services the gov't provides, they would be much better done by contracting on the market than by a direct gov't organization. c) any State apparatus with coercive wherwithal (ie, the power to tax or conscript) is absolutely bound to grow, no matter what the constitutional or procedural proscriptions. If you must have a State, there are several non-coercive models to choose from. Take Heinlein's "Starship Trooper" model, where service is voluntary (but you must have served to vote). Or one where the gov't gets its budget by inflating--$10 billion a year, fixed in absolute dollar amount forever. In times of present danger that was clear to the people and not just the politicians, voluntary contributions and service enrollments would rise. Or how about gov'ts that were organizationally similar to present ones, but non-geographic, so that you could change your "citizenship" by calling a toll-free number? I'd subscribe to New Hampshire for sure. Experimentation is encouraged! --JoSH
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (09/30/85)
In article <145@l5.uucp> laura@l5.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes: > >I think that the state is necessary. I think that the state should be >responsible for only one thing -- the defence of the rights of citizens. >This implies both internal and external defence -- the state is responsible >for providing a legal code which defines what the rights are, and which >imposes penalties for trangressing against those rights. > >What i do not want is full time (career) civil servants. There undoubtably >are people who would make good full time Judges, policemen and law makers >but there are far too many who are not. Therefore I propose limiting how >long one can work for the state to 2 terms of (say) 5 years each.... >Do not expect the salary to be good, however. > > Well, this is getting close to a form of Libertaria that I could accept. At least there is a recognition that certain functions which entail a conflict of interest under open market conditions need to be handled by public funding. The only point of disagreement is the last sentence. Poor salaries for those such as police makes for a *great* temptation to corruption and bribery(conflict of interest). At least the most critical public employees should be paid well enough so that they are not tempted to supplement thier income improperly. (P.S. this is a problem currently - I think police in most jurisdicitons deserve rather large raises). -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (10/10/85)
In article <3780@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> josh@topaz.UUCP (J Storrs Hall) writes: > >In article <145@l5.uucp> laura@l5.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes: >>I think that the state is necessary. I think that the state should be >>responsible for only one thing -- the defence of the rights of citizens. > >There are two interpretations of the phrase, "national defense". One >is, defense OF the nation; the other, defense AGAINST nations. The one >with which we need be concerned is surely the latter? Why must there >be nations in the first place? All that is obviously necessary is that >there be legitimate organizations of sufficient scope and capability >to handle any probable threats to rights and liberty. > The issue here is not really *national* defence, but right's defence, which includes, but is not limited to, "national" defence. The defence of rights at the personal level and the defence at the extended group level are similar in nature, differing mainly in *scope*. The problem with "private" protection agencies is essentially one of conflict of interest. The loyalty of such organizations is to those who pay, thus giving the people with the most money almost absolute power. Furthermore, protection for profit is unreliable since the protectors may decide the "other" side can pay better and sell out. This is why these activities at least *must* be paid for by *public* funds, and be attached to the public for thier source of authority. No-one has ever come up with a better way of limiting how partizan these organizations become. > >If you must have a State, there are several non-coercive models to >choose from. Take Heinlein's "Starship Trooper" model, where service >is voluntary (but you must have served to vote). Or one where the >gov't gets its budget by inflating--$10 billion a year, fixed in >absolute dollar amount forever. In times of present danger that >was clear to the people and not just the politicians, voluntary >contributions and service enrollments would rise. Or how about >gov'ts that were organizationally similar to present ones, but >non-geographic, so that you could change your "citizenship" by >calling a toll-free number? I'd subscribe to New Hampshire for sure. > Well, if you extended the franchise to anyone who went into government service not just the military I *might* be willing to try the Heinlein model. Restricting the vote to military veterans is a sure-fire way of producing an aggressive, militaristic empire! Everyone with a vote would think that the military approach to problem solving was the best! The problem with non-geopgraphical systems is one of jurisdiction. If A steals all my belongings, but belongs to a different "nation", who has jurisdiction? What if his "nation" decides to only provide protection for its citizens and refuses to take action on the matter, and that if *my* nation takes action they will have to move to protect thier citizen. We already have this problem to some degree, but at least the geopraphical approach to jurisdiction means that whil A is in my nations area, my nation has the jurisdiction to take action against him. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa