torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek ) (09/19/85)
In article <567@x.UUCP> wjr@x.UUCP (STella Calvert) writes: >[In Libertaria, I'd] know that my neighbors, likewise free, would be >ready to defend our common condition of non-coercion by killing the coercers. Not unless there is a very strong community spirit and you have very brave neighbors. Otherwise many neighbors will cop out, either fleeing or hoping that the rest of the community will succeed while she (the cop-out-er) covers her ass. Before the war, the cop-out-ers also don't contribute to the town's (or region's) Buy-a-tank-and-some-antitank-missiles Fund. >But (I think I hear a voice crying) how are you going to defend yourself >against a rival group with nuclear weapons? Simple. I'm not. [...] So nuke >me! <no smiley -- nuclear terrorism only works if there are organizations >that can be blackmailed into surrendering for the individual.> How incredibly naive. As if nuclear terrorism couldn't work by making an example out of a few libertarian towns and then warning the rest not to resist -- or else. --Paul V Torek, busting them simplistic icons over and over and over...
wjr@x.UUCP (Bill Richard) (09/26/85)
<> Note: This is STella Calvert, a guest on ...decvax!frog!wjr. In article <239@umich.UUCP> torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek ) writes: >In article <567@x.UUCP> wjr@x.UUCP (STella Calvert) writes: >>[In Libertaria, I'd] know that my neighbors, likewise free, would be >>ready to defend our common condition of non-coercion by killing the coercers. >Not unless there is a very strong community spirit and you have very brave >neighbors. Otherwise many neighbors will cop out, either fleeing or hoping >that the rest of the community will succeed while she (the cop-out-er) >covers her ass. Before the war, the cop-out-ers also don't contribute to >the town's (or region's) Buy-a-tank-and-some-antitank-missiles Fund. I wouldn't contribute to the Tanks for the Invasion Fund either. But if I've armed my neighborhood defenses, tanks would not be a major problem. Landscape repair might be, though. What percentage of the population is militarily effective in the United Statist Army? Someone, perhaps in this newsgroup, pointed out that an army that is 3% effective will beat one that is 2% effective. And even though I am not a martial arts wiz I can provide hot meals and covering fire, and subscribe to a security service in advance. And I assume that there will be what _you_ call cop outs. I accept that there are people who think killing is wrong under any circumstances. I don't agree with them, but I'll kill or die for their right to be left peacefully in their folly. I further accept that I am pigheadedly stubborn, and would rather be a dead freewoman than a live slave. This may be stupid enough to get me killed someday. Other people may doubt the value of dying for their rights. But all fall in the same category as sick, old, young, and pregnant folks. It's in my interest to protect them, because a threat against one of us is a threat against us all. And I may someday fall into the non-combatant class myself. >How incredibly naive. As if nuclear terrorism couldn't work by making an >example out of a few libertarian towns and then warning the rest not to >resist -- or else. How incredibly naive. I've discussed this in another article, but the nut is this. I will not live in a libertaria unless I succeed in selling the idea that coercion must be resisted. That it is both stupid and dangerous to surrender to blackmail. Unless individual responsibility for safety becomes a widely distributed value, there will not be a libertaria to resist nuclear blackmail. And if individual responsibility within a community of interest permits a libertaria, I doubt that nuclear terrorism will work. If you think I'm hand-waving this one, give me help -- the nastiest questions you can ask. It's a lot too important to be wrong on. Thank you. STella Calvert (guest on ...!decvax!frog!wjr) Every man and every woman is a star.
torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek ) (10/02/85)
In article <779@x.UUCP> wjr@x.UUCP (STella Calvert) writes: >>Not unless there is a very strong community spirit and you have very brave >>neighbors. Otherwise many neighbors will cop out, either fleeing or hoping >>that the rest of the community will succeed while she (the cop-out-er) >>covers her ass. Before the war, the cop-out-ers also don't contribute to >>the town's (or region's) Buy-a-tank-and-some-antitank-missiles Fund. > >I wouldn't contribute to the Tanks for the Invasion Fund either. But if I've >armed my neighborhood defenses, tanks would not be a major problem. Landscape >repair might be, though. What percentage of the population is militarily >effective in the United Statist Army? Mines aren't going to be a very cost-effective idea without some more mobile defenses, but let the experts debate that one. In a war, virtually the whole working population of USA is militarily effective. Of course, chickenhearted Libertaria-ns could man the factories too, I suppose, but the problem is liable to be that they won't stick around to do so. >And I assume that there will be what _you_ call cop outs. I accept that there >are people who think killing is wrong under any circumstances. [...] Other >people may doubt the value of dying for their rights. Or rather, the value of dying for *other people's* rights: my fighting for Libertaria spreads benefits thinly to many Libertaria-ns, only one of whom is myself. >... It's in my interest to protect them, because a threat against one >of us is a threat against us all. Yes if you count altruistic concern among your "interests" (the sense of "interest" being "things you're interested in" rather than "self-interest"). A narrowly selfish person would think, however, that it was in his interest to be a free rider: the small chance that *his* support would make the diff- erence of which side won being outweighed by the sizable chance that he'd get his ass blown off. >I've discussed this in another article, but the nut is this. I will not live >in a libertaria unless I succeed in selling the idea that coercion must be >resisted. That it is both stupid and dangerous to surrender to blackmail. >Unless individual responsibility for safety becomes a widely distributed >value, there will not be a libertaria to resist nuclear blackmail. You assert: 1) Libertaria will not arrive unless people come to have these attitudes you describe. 2) If people have these attitudes nuclear blackmail will not work, so it won't be used. You hint: 3) these attitudes make perfect sense. 3) is far from obvious; I think many people would have to become a lot less selfish before they could ever accept 3). 2) I'll grant you, though I wonder if aggressive states will *realize* the futility of nuclear blackmail even if it *is* futile. 1) is false: I would accept Libertaria if I thought that govt was as dangerous and inefficient as most libertarians think, even though I would never accept the irrational base values most libertarians take as axioms. --Paul V. Torek torek@umich