KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (11/20/86)
From: Willie Lim <WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
... What may be sense to you may actually be nonsense to others.
How can you say this while advocating objectivity? If there is an
objective reality then something is either sense or nonsense (or some
mixture). Which it is cannot depend on who you are.
The incentive [to send shorter messages] would be more realistic
if there is a charge for using the service.
And the incentive to send longer messages would be more realistic
if I was paid for my messages. So? As long as I am willing to send
messages and others are willing to distribute them and still others
are willing to read them, what's the problem?
1) Duels. You assumed that it is not a problem. You said
nothing about why it can't be a problem in *ANY* libertarian
society.
I don't understand the question. How can I explain why it's not a
problem when you have never said why you think it is a problem?
2) Nations in transitions (Haiti, the Philippines, South Africa,
Grenada). You gave reasons for why they can't become libertarian.
No, I said it is realistically unlikely that they soon would, just
as it is unlikely for communist countries to soon become even as free
as the US.
You did not mention what the prerequisites are for a libertarian
society.
I wish I knew.
3) Society of nations. You wimped out.
No, I explained why there was no comparison. Countries are not
anything like individuals. Individuals cannot enslave parts of
themselves, have revolutions, invasions, merge, split, or become
colonies of other individuals. Countries cannot think, cannot
have desires, goals, aspirations, friends, or lovers.
4) Presidential Plan. Again you wimped out. You did not say how
the government is made accountable in a libertarian society, i.e.
how and why it works.
Yes I did, though perhaps not in reply to your message, since I
had said it several times before. Government is made accountable
essentially in the way it is now. The difference being that a
libertarian government would not have the power to tax, to make or
enforce laws against victimless crimes, to wage war except when
invaded, to draft anyone, or to spend money on anything but defense
of individual liberties, i.e. police, courts, and military.
...Keith
-------WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU (11/20/86)
Regarding duels... From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU> I don't understand the question. How can I explain why it's not a problem when you have never said why you think it is a problem? Duels unlike other things involve the deliberate taking of at least one life. That one life may be that of the President, the smartest general in the Pentagon, a key member of a super top secret weapons development team, etc. You don't think that this is going to be a problem as you argue that there should be no regulation whatsoever on duels. For example if the KGB/GRU cooks up a very ingenious plan to kill an important person in the US via a duel and that person is willing to take part in the duel, that's is ok. You don't see any need for regulating duels even in the interest of national security. Or do you? Regarding the society of nations.... No, I explained why there was no comparison. Countries are not anything like individuals..... But countries can trade with each other without a super-government being involved. Countries also have to deal with problems like acid rain/pollution from neighboring countries. The point is that some (but not all) countries seem to get along fine without a super-government. I would think that you should be able to generate strong arguments for less government using countries as examples. Regarding the prerequisites for a libertarian society... I wish I knew. (-: I do see an opportunity for you or other libertarians to write a book on this so that other libertarians can preach it using a government subsidized network. :-) The difference being that a libertarian government would not have the power to tax, to make or enforce laws against victimless crimes, to wage war except when invaded, to draft anyone, or to spend money on anything but defense of individual liberties, i.e. police, courts, and military. Is it possible for a libertarian government to be incompetent or corrupt or engage in illegal activities? If so how can it be held accountable? Through the courts? The ballot boxes? Willie ------- -------
WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU (12/16/86)
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU> ....If there is an objective reality then something is either sense or nonsense (or some mixture).... You brought the point up yourself. That is, it is only the case when the topic being discussed has an objective reality does what you say make sense. I was merely raising questions about the objective reality of the things you said. And the incentive to send longer messages would be more realistic if I was paid for my messages. So? As long as I am willing to send messages and others are willing to distribute them and still others are willing to read them, what's the problem? Despite all your objections to government subsidies, you are actually dependent on one. The problem is the careless misuse of facilities funded by the government. This attitude occurs among some people on welfare, some doctors (when charging their medical bills to the government), some engineers and managers in the defense industries (when charging the government for their services), some personnel in the military, some civil servants, some senators, some congressmen, some presidents (e.g. frequent and expensive vacation trips), etc. It is rather ironic that in criticizing the waste and inefficiency in government, you are actually contributing to the waste and inefficiency (though in a rather small way but it adds up when you consider how many people are out there involved in such abuses). (-: Perhaps the government is to be blamed for letting these culprits get away with it. :-) There are at least two, not necessarily compatible, conclusions from the above: 1) People (libertarians, liberals, conservatives, moderates, ...) will always exploit and become dependent on government handouts and subsidies, therefore there should be no government handouts and subsidies. (Your arguments give the impression that libertarians are not in that group but your actions contradict that.) 2) Some subsidies are good. E.g. the government bearing some of the cost of electronic discussion over the net is good as it helps in the evolution of the system of government to a better one, which in your case is a libertarian one. Which is your conclusion---1 or 2? Willie ------- -------