Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site kontron.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!amd!pesnta!pertec!kontron!cramer From: cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Slippery slope nightmares Message-ID: <401@kontron.UUCP> Date: Tue, 23-Jul-85 13:15:47 EDT Article-I.D.: kontron.401 Posted: Tue Jul 23 13:15:47 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 26-Jul-85 03:47:45 EDT References: <991@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA> <245@ubvax.UUCP> <1019@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA> <403@spar.UUCP> Organization: Kontron Electronics, Irvine, CA Lines: 105 > In article <1019@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA> mwm (Less-than-mike) writes: > > In article <245@ubvax.UUCP> tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) writes: > > >Oh sure there's a slippery slope for anyone who wants to pass prescriptive > > >laws. Maybe their lust for more prescriptive laws (politicians as > > >capitalists, I guess) will lead to a tightening noose which would > > >someday equal dictatorship. > > > > > >It's never happened (maybe in Switzerland? :-)). Dictatorships are > > >established not by politicians following slippery slopes, but rather > > >by coups in times of extreme crisis. Dictators come as saviors, > > >not as well-meaning limited liberal politicians. The kind of > > >dictatorship that mike fears has never happened. > > > > Coups at times of extreme crisis? You mean like the election that Hitler > > won? > > Hitler was not elected to power. He received only 36.8 percent of the > vote in the second ballot of the German presidential elections of 1932. That wasn't when he came to power. > In the crisis atmosphere of the German Depression, with 6,000,000 > unemployed, the Reichstag was divided and paralyzed. In return for > putting the Nazis into coalition with the Center and Nationalist > parties, Hitler secured the Chancellorship for himself. With the power > of that office, with effective control of the streets, and with the > burning of the Reichstag used as an excuse to assume emergency powers, > the Nazi's *still* failed to win a majority in the Reichstag the > following year. So they contrived a rigged session in which the > Reichstag effectively signed over its authority to Hitler. > > It was supposed to look like democracy. All good coups do. > Majority isn't required in a parlimentary system. The election that I was referring to was the 1933 parlimentary election in which the National Socialists received 42% of the vote, and the Nationalists (coalition partners) received 6% of the vote. The rigged session in fact happened --- but by that point, the National Socialist-Nationalist coalition had won the elections. Read William Shirer's _The_Rise_And_Fall_ _of_The_Third_Reich_. Hitler's election was more democratic than *any* election we've ever had in this country, based on the percentage of the population voting. > That small point having been made, on to the comedy... > > > > It isn't the liberal politicians that scare me; it isn't even the > > socialist in general. It's the kind of power they want to give to the > > state; even if they hide it in the guise of "will of the majority." > > It isn't the gun nuts that scare me; it isn't even guns in general. > It's the kind of power they want to give to people; even if they hide > it in the guise of "self-defense". > Do you object to self-defense? Do you object to totalitarianism? > > >This slippery slope of one law leading to a cascade leading to > > >dictatorship is a silly nightmare. We should reassure people who > > >have these nightmares that the world is not so gloomy. > > > > It isn't the laws per se. *It's the power.* Once that kind of power is > > given over to the government, it can be used by anyone who can gain > > control of the government. > > It isn't the weapons per se. *It's the power. * Once that kind of power > is given over to people, it can be used by anyone who can pull a trigger. > But an *individual* who does something evil isn't anywhere near as dangerous as the government, simply because the government affects almost everyone. One armed lunatic can't kill more than a few dozen people before they are killed. (In an armed society, you can remove the word "dozen" from that last sentence.) > > >Pragmatic people live on slippery slopes all the time. They just > > >carve out horizontal niches for themselves and maybe put up some > > >barriers against avalanches. > > > > Maybe you would like to tackle my as yet unanswered challenge, then. Can > > you describe a system where the government can't pass nearly arbitrary > > laws, given enough time? [Don't jump at the US constitution; it has been > > amended three times to pass laws that would have been "unconstitutional" > > before the amendment.] > > > > > Maybe you would like to tackle my yet unanswered challenge, then. Can > you describe a system of gun ownership where someone can't assassinate > nearly arbitrary individuals, given enough time? [Don't jump at the > police state; some police have been known to be bribed.] > Politicians need to live in fear of assassination; it helps to keep them in line. > Seriously, and that will be as true for a libertarian state as for a democracy or > a dictatorship. There are many sources of power over people, and the > institutions of the state are only the most obvious. The fact that they > have potential for abuse is no more valid a reason for their abolition than > the abuse potential of handguns is for the banning of handguns ;-). > > Baba A democracy or a dictatorship (difference is frequently small) provides far more danger than a libertarian society because in a libertarian society, power is extremely diffuse. A democracy centralizes power in a small number of hands.