Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site unmvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!teddy!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!unmvax!cliff
From: cliff@unmvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: The FORCE of Property -- More Straw Men
Message-ID: <598@unmvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 22-Jan-85 02:59:33 EST
Article-I.D.: unmvax.598
Posted: Tue Jan 22 02:59:33 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 27-Jan-85 05:03:55 EST
References: <760@ratex.UUCP> <71@ucbcad.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Univ. of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Lines: 57

Wayne is explaining that it is not necessary

> to build straw men to make people look stupid. Here are some from the
> recent Libertaria debate: (I have forgotten who posted this, but there
> was not a shred of support for these claims)

That was the point.  There was no shred of support for the original Libertaria
posting.  (Then again I haven't seen a shred of supporting evidence to the
contrary either).

Before presenting my comments it might be nice to refresh the reader's memory
as to what Libertaria is/was:  Richard Carnes painted it as the
most ugly and depressing scenario he could think of (short of growing up a
skeleton in a hunger stricken socialist country).  My view was one of unlimited
possibility.  It was to provide a little contrast with just as much
verifiability.

> 
> > ... the legal code would be so much easier to understand it would
> > be inconceivable that a lawyer's prowess would enter into the play.

Is it really that hard to imagine a judicial system where the smartest lawyer
didn't win (unlike what happens today)? or did you not understand the meaning
of prowess in that sentence?  I would think that anyone would favor such a
system.  Even if you believe it to be impossible, isn't it more likely that
a system with fewer laws and a less powerful government would have a fairer
legal system than one that is clogged with victimless crime laws?

> > How about Jill is constantly employed, since there is no unemployment.
> > Jill doesn't have to worry about inflation and has had enough money to
> > save up for her future years.  

Get rid of the minimum wage law and anyone that wants a job will have one.
Neuter the entitlement programs and everyone will want a job.  Get the feds
out of the monetary supply and there will be no inflation.

> > Her sons both opted not to join the service
> > since there was little incentive (think what the volunteer armed services
> > would be like if there were 100% employment of civilians...).

Almost all of the younger recruits that I know or have known since the days
of volunteer service went in to it for the security of guaranteed employment.

> Now, I wouldn't think of claiming that these are typical Libertarian
> arguments, but they certainly aren't "straw men" either... (Unless
> anybody suspects me of having lots of accounts all over the country
> from which I post all the stupid arguments that I want to disagree
> with, under assumed names...)
> 
> 	Wayne

He's right.  I'm a separate entity.

--Cliff [Matthews]
{purdue, cmcl2, ihnp4}!lanl!unmvax!cliff
{csu-cs, pur-ee, convex, gatech, ucbvax}!unmvax!cliff
4744 Trumbull S.E. - Albuquerque  NM  87108 - (505) 265-9143