[net.politics.theory] Government vs True Libertarianism

esk@wucs.UUCP (Walter Wego) (02/11/85)

from Walter Wego --

[Since I'm the one who convinced Paul Torek on this issue, I should
	do the explaining from here on in.  Here goes:]
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
> Excuse me, but our government NOW allows some use of force under some
> circumstances -- between parent and child, for example.  Does that make
> it "not a government" because it is not enforcing a monopoly of force
> within its borders?  

The monopoly of force claimed by government is a monopoly on *the right
to decide when* force may be used.  Torek said as much in previous
articles.

> Does the inconsistency [Torek] seem[s] to see have any consequences? 
> I'd say it does -- it probably shows to be incorrect the original 
> definition of "government".  

If a "government" claims no monopoly, how the f*cking h*ll do you think
you can separate it from the multitude of rights-enforcement agencies that
could (and probably would) exist in a Free Economy?  What makes *it* "THE"
government?  And if you try to say that *all* rights-enforcement agencies
are "governments", I say you're speaking metaphorically at best.

> I notice that there's no quote about the "libertarian" definition of 
> government.  By the way, if you do decide to reprint the quote, please 
> also reprint its source, and the quote from renner, above [OMITTED TO
> SPARE READERS THE REPETITION], so that EVERYBODY can see that you're 
> merely arguing that one libertarian used "government" in a way distinct
> from the way another used it.

Do you think there's a special definition of government just for 
libertarians??  That's news to me, I'm a libertarian and I just use
standard English myself.  And Torek's articles are long enough without
keeping all the quotes.  I'll show you some other libertarians, though,
who recognize the monopoly aspect of government:
	From the net:  J. Bashinski
	"A GOVERNMENT is an entity which reserves all use of force
	to itself, and which uses force to prevent others from
	using force without its authorization."
			AND
	From a well-known book:  Robert Nozick, *Anarchy State and
	Utopia*, p. 23:
	"A state claims a monopoly on deciding who may use force
	when; it says that only it may decide who may use force
	and under what conditions; it reserves to itself the sole
	right to pass on the legitimacy and permissibility of any 
	use of force within its boundaries..."
Satisfied?

> Never was it more obvious why Thoreau said that "consistency is the
> hobgoblin of little minds" 

It was Emerson, and he was talking about consistency over time; about
people who constantly have the same habits, opinions, etc.  He was
*not* talking about logical consistency.  (Logical consistency doesn't
guarantee truth, granted, but logical *inconsistency* guarantees 
falsehood!)

> -- as near as I can tell, you're ignoring the real points of 
> libertarianism and "sniping on the boarders".  

"Captain, we're being boarded!"  "Well, snipe on the boarders!"  :-)

But seriously, I guess we shouldn't bother about MINOR ISSUES like
WHETHER GOVERNMENT SHOULD EXIST!!??  Or WHETHER PEOPLE SHOULD BE
COERCED, AS INEVITABLY HAPPENS UNDER GOVERNMENT?  Oh, but since you
agree (I hope) with me that coercion is wrong; and you don't see
how government necessarily involves coercion, it's okay, right?
Most people don't see how taxation necessarily involves coercion
either, but that doesn't make it acceptable.

--apparently a dying breed, the TRUE libertarian,
				Walter Wego, c/o wucs!wucec1!pvt1047
Don't hit that 'r' key!  Use this address.  Mark mail "for Walter Wego."