Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Problems with libertarianism.
Message-ID: <515@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 29-Apr-85 15:22:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.515
Posted: Mon Apr 29 15:22:22 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 1-May-85 05:47:22 EDT
References: <485@cybvax0.UUCP> <2380007@acf4.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 31

In article <2380007@acf4.UUCP> mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes:
> >/* mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) /  1:24 pm  Apr 22, 1985 */
> >We choose the legal fictions based on social goals, one of which is
> >non-coercion.  Another common goal is social stability.  There are trade-
> 
> What does "social stability" mean?

The particular example I was thinking of is a stable relationship with
governments and communities.  Like not getting shot in next weeks revolution.

> Whose goals?

People.  People have desires, ya know.

> >The examples where maximization of benefits can only be secured by
> >enforcing cooperation are innumerable.  Unless cheating is made uneconomic,
> >cooperation will dissolve or never appear.  It's nice to minimize the
> >coercion required, but to make that a priority goal will cause
> >cooperation to suffer.
> 
> Maximization of benefits to whom?

The group that is cooperating.

> "Coerce" to "cooperate" -- Huh?

Did you make out a tax return this year?  There is strong coercion to
cooperate this way.  Need more examples?
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh