Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site unmvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxb!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!unmvax!cliff
From: cliff@unmvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Emigration vs. withdrawing from a group:Human Race
Message-ID: <691@unmvax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 21-Feb-85 04:51:48 EST
Article-I.D.: unmvax.691
Posted: Thu Feb 21 04:51:48 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 26-Feb-85 06:44:02 EST
References: <1597@bmcg.UUCP> <233@tilt.FUN> <676@unmvax.UUCP> <240@tilt.FUN>
Distribution: net
Organization: Univ. of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Lines: 46
Xref: watmath net.politics:7768 net.politics.theory:223

> > > Bull.  The very fact that governments of a more organized form exist is
> > > a refutation of the empirical success of Libertarianism.
> > 
> > Righto! and the fact that people are starving to death in socialist African
> > nations is a refutation of the empirical success of  capitalism's ability
> > to keep enough food in a country to feed its citizens.  After all, if
> > capitalism really allowed such food, the countries that are all starving to
> > death would switch immediately to the better form of government, hence the
> > following theorem: [...]
> 
> Here's an elementary lesson in logic.  If P -> Q does not imply If Q -> P.
> Thus, the statement "If a government changes as a result of an internal
> action -> that the government in question was not adequately meeting the
> needs of some of it's people" does not imply the converse.

I interpreted your use of "governments of a more organized form" to mean
governments that adhere less to the principles of libertarianism than the
fabled (optimally libertarian) Libertaria.  Hence your statement was roughly
equivalent to ~the mere existance of non-libertarian countries is a refutation
of the empirical success of Libertarianism.~  I was pointing out *your* fallacy
by analogy: ~the existance of non-capitalist countries is a refutation of the
empirical success of capitalism.~ ... gee, now where did P and Q get reversed?

Face it, the existance of more organized forms of governments is not a
refutation of the empirical success of Libertarianism.

> 
> > > If Libertarianism really worked as well as some
> > > people think it would, if it had been tried, it would still exist
> > > (barring circumstances such as conquest, genocide, etc.).

Now I can say Bull.  Your claim that if "Libertarianism really worked as well"
...  "it would still exist." is simply not correct.  Governments change from
better to worse quite frequently.  You bar circumstances such as conquest,
genocide,
etc., but you don't bar myopic politicians elected by ignorant (and apathetic)
citizens.  Look at all the clever stunts that have been pulled to provide a
temporary fix that looks palatable but will cause severe damage in the future
(e.g. Nixon's price controls, the deficit).  By now it should be obvious that
capitalist farmers tend to outproduce their non-capitalist counterparts--quite
a few countries, including ones behind the iron curtain, are allowing their
farmers to make a profit on some of their land because it spurs production,
but not all countries do this, because governments and their consequences are
rarely examined objectively.

--Cliff