Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!teddy!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!flink
From: flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul Torek)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: CONSISTENCY?  Still waiting...
Message-ID: <2373@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 9-Jan-85 13:57:18 EST
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.2373
Posted: Wed Jan  9 13:57:18 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 12-Jan-85 06:42:48 EST
References: <2167@umcp-cs.UUCP> <621@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA>
Reply-To: flink@maryland.UUCP (Paul Torek)
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 44
Keywords: government,libertarianism,monopoly
Summary: educating <mike: it's tough, but someone's gotta do it

I do so like people quoted in context claiming otherwise...

In article <621> mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA writes:
>From flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul Torek) Wed Dec 31 16:00:00 1969
>> From: mwm@ea.UUCP (<mike)
>> >No, libertarianism is not anarchy. What differentiates a libertarian
>> >government from an anarchy, and indeed from any statist government, is 
>> >that a libertarian government does *not* have the right to initiate 
>> >force. It may have a monopoly on force, and on being able to decide 
>> >when it will be used, but it may only use force in response to force.
>> 
>> The following phrases in you reply are crucial:
>> 1. "does not have [sic--you mean claim] the right to initiate force"
>> 2. "have a monopoly on force, and on being able to decide when it
>> 	will be used"
>> 
>> 1 contradicts 2.  QED.
>
>Paul, read the part of the last sentence that you neglected to quote:
>"but it may only use force in response to force." Poof, your
>contradiction vanishes.

Fancy magic you have there, too bad it doesn't work.  Using force only in
response to force is not enough to maintain the monopoly character that
makes a government a government, as opposed to being just one protection
agency among many.  So 1 does contadict 2.  QED.

I love it when they try to escape the grip of logic!

>There is a problem, thougth: no government can have a monopoly on force,
>unless it has total and complete control over all activities of it's citizens.
>The best it can claim is an overwhelming superiority of force. But that's
>all it really needs.

Sorry, you're wrong.  Governments don't exactly need a monopoly on force, 
they need a monopoly on the *right* to decide when it may be used.  A 
superiority of force is not enough; there are situations where a group has 
that yet we would be reluctant to call it a government.  Besides, due to 
competition, no group that abides by libertarian principles could guarantee
(or even expect) to have an overwhelming superiority of force.

 				Hoping it's finally sinking in,
 				Paul V Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047
(please send any replies to this (new) address, not the sender's)