[net.politics.theory] Slippery slope nightmares

tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (07/11/85)

In article <991@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA>, mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (Mike (I'll be mellow when I'm dead) Meyer) writes:
> This is the brush that tars statist of all stripes. They know what's
> best for people, and are going to pass laws (or regulations, or royal
> pronouncements, or whatever) to see that those things are done or not
> done. We have another word to describe that kind of society; we call it
> a dictatorship.
> 
> 	<mike

Oh sure there's a slippery slope for anyone who wants to pass prescriptive
laws.  Maybe their lust for more prescriptive laws (politicians as
capitalists, I guess) will lead to a tightening noose which would
someday equal dictatorship.

It's never happened (maybe in Switzerland? :-)).  Dictatorships are
established not by politicians following slippery slopes, but rather
by coups in times of extreme crisis.  Dictators come as saviors,
not as well-meaning limited liberal politicians.  The kind of
dictatorship that mike fears has never happened (although again,
Switzerland ... [remember the movie "Bread and Chocolate"?] :-))

This slippery slope of one law leading to a cascade leading to
dictatorship is a silly nightmare.  We should reassure people who
have these nightmares that the world is not so gloomy.

Pragmatic people live on slippery slopes all the time.  They just
carve out horizontal niches for themselves and maybe put up some
barriers against avalanches.

Tony Wuersch
{amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw

"And if you don't believe all the things I say
 I'm certified prime by the USDA!"

cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/18/85)

> In article <991@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA>, mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (Mike (I'll be mellow when I'm dead) Meyer) writes:
> > This is the brush that tars statist of all stripes. They know what's
> > best for people, and are going to pass laws (or regulations, or royal
> > pronouncements, or whatever) to see that those things are done or not
> > done. We have another word to describe that kind of society; we call it
> > a dictatorship.
> > 
> > 	<mike
> 
> Oh sure there's a slippery slope for anyone who wants to pass prescriptive
> laws.  Maybe their lust for more prescriptive laws (politicians as
> capitalists, I guess) will lead to a tightening noose which would
> someday equal dictatorship.
> 
> It's never happened (maybe in Switzerland? :-)).  Dictatorships are
> established not by politicians following slippery slopes, but rather
> by coups in times of extreme crisis.  Dictators come as saviors,
> not as well-meaning limited liberal politicians.  The kind of
> dictatorship that mike fears has never happened (although again,
> Switzerland ... [remember the movie "Bread and Chocolate"?] :-))
> 
Hitler and Mussolini came to power by election, not by coup.  While
Hitler had no good intentions, I suspect Mussolini may have, but evil
tends to build on its self.

> This slippery slope of one law leading to a cascade leading to
> dictatorship is a silly nightmare.  We should reassure people who
> have these nightmares that the world is not so gloomy.
> 
Yeah, there's no need to worry about elections like the one that
gave Germany Hitler as chancellor.

> Pragmatic people live on slippery slopes all the time.  They just
> carve out horizontal niches for themselves and maybe put up some
> barriers against avalanches.
> 
> Tony Wuersch
> {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
> 
As technology increases the power of government, the barriers against
"avalanches" become increasingly inadequate.

mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (Mike (I'll be mellow when I'm dead) Meyer) (07/18/85)

In article <245@ubvax.UUCP> tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) writes:
>Oh sure there's a slippery slope for anyone who wants to pass prescriptive
>laws.  Maybe their lust for more prescriptive laws (politicians as
>capitalists, I guess) will lead to a tightening noose which would
>someday equal dictatorship.
>
>It's never happened (maybe in Switzerland? :-)).  Dictatorships are
>established not by politicians following slippery slopes, but rather
>by coups in times of extreme crisis.  Dictators come as saviors,
>not as well-meaning limited liberal politicians.  The kind of
>dictatorship that mike fears has never happened (although again,
>Switzerland ... [remember the movie "Bread and Chocolate"?] :-))

Coups at times of extreme crisis? You mean like the election that Hitler
won?

It isn't the liberal politicians that scare me; it isn't even the
socialist in general. It's the kind of power they want to give to the
state; even if they hide it in the guise of "will of the majority."

>This slippery slope of one law leading to a cascade leading to
>dictatorship is a silly nightmare.  We should reassure people who
>have these nightmares that the world is not so gloomy.

It isn't the laws per se. *It's the power.*  Once that kind of power is
given over to the government, it can be used by anyone who can gain
control of the government.

>Pragmatic people live on slippery slopes all the time.  They just
>carve out horizontal niches for themselves and maybe put up some
>barriers against avalanches.

Maybe you would like to tackle my as yet unanswered challenge, then. Can
you describe a system where the government can't pass nearly arbitrary
laws, given enough time? [Don't jump at the US constitution; it has been
amended three times to pass laws that would have been "unconstitutional"
before the amendment.]

	<mike

baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (07/18/85)

In article <1019@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA> mwm (Less-than-mike) writes:
> In article <245@ubvax.UUCP> tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) writes:
> >Oh sure there's a slippery slope for anyone who wants to pass prescriptive
> >laws.  Maybe their lust for more prescriptive laws (politicians as
> >capitalists, I guess) will lead to a tightening noose which would
> >someday equal dictatorship.
> >
> >It's never happened (maybe in Switzerland? :-)).  Dictatorships are
> >established not by politicians following slippery slopes, but rather
> >by coups in times of extreme crisis.  Dictators come as saviors,
> >not as well-meaning limited liberal politicians.  The kind of
> >dictatorship that mike fears has never happened.
> 
> Coups at times of extreme crisis? You mean like the election that Hitler
> won?

Hitler was not elected to power.  He received only 36.8 percent of the 
vote in the second ballot of the German presidential elections of 1932.
In the crisis atmosphere of the German Depression, with 6,000,000
unemployed, the Reichstag was divided and paralyzed.  In return for
putting the Nazis into coalition with the Center and Nationalist
parties, Hitler secured the Chancellorship for himself.  With the power
of that office, with effective control of the streets, and with the
burning of the Reichstag used as an excuse to assume emergency powers,
the Nazi's *still* failed to win a majority in the Reichstag the 
following year.  So they contrived a rigged session in which the
Reichstag effectively signed over its authority to Hitler.

It was supposed to look like democracy.  All good coups do.

That small point having been made, on to the comedy...


> It isn't the liberal politicians that scare me; it isn't even the
> socialist in general. It's the kind of power they want to give to the
> state; even if they hide it in the guise of "will of the majority."

It isn't the gun nuts that scare me; it isn't even guns in general.  
It's the kind of power they want to give to people; even if they hide 
it in the guise of "self-defense".

> >This slippery slope of one law leading to a cascade leading to
> >dictatorship is a silly nightmare.  We should reassure people who
> >have these nightmares that the world is not so gloomy.
> 
> It isn't the laws per se. *It's the power.*  Once that kind of power is
> given over to the government, it can be used by anyone who can gain
> control of the government.

It isn't the weapons per se.  *It's the power. * Once that kind of power
is given over to people, it can be used by anyone who can pull a trigger.

> >Pragmatic people live on slippery slopes all the time.  They just
> >carve out horizontal niches for themselves and maybe put up some
> >barriers against avalanches.
> 
> Maybe you would like to tackle my as yet unanswered challenge, then. Can
> you describe a system where the government can't pass nearly arbitrary
> laws, given enough time? [Don't jump at the US constitution; it has been
> amended three times to pass laws that would have been "unconstitutional"
> before the amendment.]
> 
> 	<mike

Maybe you would like to tackle my yet unanswered challenge, then.  Can
you describe a system of gun ownership where someone can't assassinate
nearly arbitrary individuals, given enough time?  [Don't jump at the
police state; some police have been known to be bribed.]

Seriously, <mike, a system is only as good as the people who compose it,
and that will be as true for a libertarian state as for a democracy or
a dictatorship.  There are many sources of power over people, and the
institutions of the state are only the most obvious.  The fact that they
have potential for abuse is no more valid a reason for their abolition than
the abuse potential of handguns is for the banning of handguns ;-).

					Baba

mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (07/20/85)

>Maybe you would like to tackle my as yet unanswered challenge, then. Can
>you describe a system where the government can't pass nearly arbitrary
>laws, given enough time? [Don't jump at the US constitution; it has been
>amended three times to pass laws that would have been "unconstitutional"
>before the amendment.]
>
>        <mike
I haven't seen this challenge before, but it seems a funny one.  Surely
it is impossible, almost by definition, to design a society in which
there is a guarantee against any particular arbitrary law, or against
a group of people being able to impose their arbitrary will *given enough
time*.  There is no difference here between a libertarian society and
an out-and-out dictatorship, except for the time involved.  Even anarchy
won't help, because people can grab power and (horrors) coerce other
people into doing what they want.

-- 

Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt

mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (07/20/85)

>>It's never happened (maybe in Switzerland? :-)).  Dictatorships are
>>established not by politicians following slippery slopes, but rather
>>by coups in times of extreme crisis.  Dictators come as saviors,
>>not as well-meaning limited liberal politicians.  The kind of
>>dictatorship that mike fears has never happened (although again,
>>Switzerland ... [remember the movie "Bread and Chocolate"?] :-))
>
>Coups at times of extreme crisis? You mean like the election that Hitler
>won?

Hitler NEVER won an election, in the sense of getting either more than
half the votes or more than half the seats in the Reichstag.  The election
before he was called on to become Chancellor, his party lost enough
seats that the German Jewish population heaved sighs of relief. True,
he was called on in a democratic fashion to become Chancellor, but he
then executed a coup to declare himself dictator and abolish the
consitution.

Actually, Hitler is a very good example of the thesis that dictators
come to power as a result of a crisis.  The Weimar Republic was falling
apart at the seams, and there was quite a lot of support for a strong-man
leader to replace it.  He was seen as a saviour by many Germans.
-- 

Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt

cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/23/85)

> In article <1019@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA> mwm (Less-than-mike) writes:
> > In article <245@ubvax.UUCP> tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) writes:
> > >Oh sure there's a slippery slope for anyone who wants to pass prescriptive
> > >laws.  Maybe their lust for more prescriptive laws (politicians as
> > >capitalists, I guess) will lead to a tightening noose which would
> > >someday equal dictatorship.
> > >
> > >It's never happened (maybe in Switzerland? :-)).  Dictatorships are
> > >established not by politicians following slippery slopes, but rather
> > >by coups in times of extreme crisis.  Dictators come as saviors,
> > >not as well-meaning limited liberal politicians.  The kind of
> > >dictatorship that mike fears has never happened.
> > 
> > Coups at times of extreme crisis? You mean like the election that Hitler
> > won?
> 
> Hitler was not elected to power.  He received only 36.8 percent of the 
> vote in the second ballot of the German presidential elections of 1932.
That wasn't when he came to power.

> In the crisis atmosphere of the German Depression, with 6,000,000
> unemployed, the Reichstag was divided and paralyzed.  In return for
> putting the Nazis into coalition with the Center and Nationalist
> parties, Hitler secured the Chancellorship for himself.  With the power
> of that office, with effective control of the streets, and with the
> burning of the Reichstag used as an excuse to assume emergency powers,
> the Nazi's *still* failed to win a majority in the Reichstag the 
> following year.  So they contrived a rigged session in which the
> Reichstag effectively signed over its authority to Hitler.
> 
> It was supposed to look like democracy.  All good coups do.
> 
Majority isn't required in a parlimentary system.  The election that
I was referring to was the 1933 parlimentary election in which the 
National Socialists received 42% of the vote, and the Nationalists
(coalition partners) received 6% of the vote.  The rigged session in
fact happened --- but by that point, the National Socialist-Nationalist
coalition had won the elections.  Read William Shirer's _The_Rise_And_Fall_
_of_The_Third_Reich_.  Hitler's election was more democratic than *any*
election we've ever had in this country, based on the percentage of 
the population voting.

> That small point having been made, on to the comedy...
> 
> 
> > It isn't the liberal politicians that scare me; it isn't even the
> > socialist in general. It's the kind of power they want to give to the
> > state; even if they hide it in the guise of "will of the majority."
> 
> It isn't the gun nuts that scare me; it isn't even guns in general.  
> It's the kind of power they want to give to people; even if they hide 
> it in the guise of "self-defense".
> 
Do you object to self-defense?  Do you object to totalitarianism?

> > >This slippery slope of one law leading to a cascade leading to
> > >dictatorship is a silly nightmare.  We should reassure people who
> > >have these nightmares that the world is not so gloomy.
> > 
> > It isn't the laws per se. *It's the power.*  Once that kind of power is
> > given over to the government, it can be used by anyone who can gain
> > control of the government.
> 
> It isn't the weapons per se.  *It's the power. * Once that kind of power
> is given over to people, it can be used by anyone who can pull a trigger.
> 
But an *individual* who does something evil isn't anywhere near as 
dangerous as the government, simply because the government affects almost
everyone.  One armed lunatic can't kill more than a few dozen people before
they are killed.  (In an armed society, you can remove the word "dozen"
from that last sentence.)

> > >Pragmatic people live on slippery slopes all the time.  They just
> > >carve out horizontal niches for themselves and maybe put up some
> > >barriers against avalanches.
> > 
> > Maybe you would like to tackle my as yet unanswered challenge, then. Can
> > you describe a system where the government can't pass nearly arbitrary
> > laws, given enough time? [Don't jump at the US constitution; it has been
> > amended three times to pass laws that would have been "unconstitutional"
> > before the amendment.]
> > 
> > 	<mike
> 
> Maybe you would like to tackle my yet unanswered challenge, then.  Can
> you describe a system of gun ownership where someone can't assassinate
> nearly arbitrary individuals, given enough time?  [Don't jump at the
> police state; some police have been known to be bribed.]
> 
Politicians need to live in fear of assassination; it helps to keep them
in line.

> Seriously, <mike, a system is only as good as the people who compose it,
> and that will be as true for a libertarian state as for a democracy or
> a dictatorship.  There are many sources of power over people, and the
> institutions of the state are only the most obvious.  The fact that they
> have potential for abuse is no more valid a reason for their abolition than
> the abuse potential of handguns is for the banning of handguns ;-).
> 
> 					Baba

A democracy or a dictatorship (difference is frequently small) provides
far more danger than a libertarian society because in a libertarian society,
power is extremely diffuse.  A democracy centralizes power in a small
number of hands.

mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (Mike (I'll be mellow when I'm dead) Meyer) (07/25/85)

In article <1642@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) writes:
>I haven't seen this challenge before, but it seems a funny one.  Surely
>it is impossible, almost by definition, to design a society in which
>there is a guarantee against any particular arbitrary law, or against
>a group of people being able to impose their arbitrary will *given enough
>time*.

I tend to agree: I don't think such a society can be built. However, I can't
prove that it can't be done, so every once in a while I try again, or ask
others to take a crack at it.

The basic problem seems to be that organizations are run for the benefit of
those who run them (statists please note), and gathering more power into
their hands is to their benefit. The best that can be done is put stringent
restrictions on such action to delay the decay into totalitarianism.

	<mike