Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!yale!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Newsflash! [JoSH on Socialis
Message-ID: <28200183@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 21-Oct-85 08:41:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.28200183
Posted: Mon Oct 21 08:41:00 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 23-Oct-85 07:28:19 EDT
References: <876@water.UUCP>
Lines: 39
Nf-ID: #R:water:-87600:inmet:28200183:000:2008
Nf-From: inmet!nrh    Oct 21 08:41:00 1985


>/* Written  6:07 pm  Oct 17, 1985 by mrh@cybvax0 in inmet:net.politics.t */
>In article <28200170@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes:
>> Please bear in mind that the forces of freedom from government don't
>> propose to break down anyones door, send your young men off to war
>> unwillingly, or tell you what to do with your life, but the forces 
>> FOR government have, at one time or another claimed that these things
>> were necessary to pay "the price of civilization".
>
>Right.  Instead, your forces of freedom from government is proposing to
>throw away our current system of keeping people from breaking down our
>doors for an untried and probably impractical one.  The systems can't
>coexist: the current one depends on being the only one.

It's odd to hear Mike Huybensz toeing the conservative line, but I find
it encouraging (in an odd way).

Mike: the notion that the "current system of keeping people from breaking
down our doors" depends on being the only one is unsupported, irrelevant,
muddleheaded, and wrong.

Unsupported: (so far, anyhow).  Simply saying: "it's there, it works",
says nothing about the validity of other systems, particularly (as
Jan points out) when the first steps towards libertarian society are so
simple and incremental.

Irrelevant: if it DOES depend on being the only method, it doesn't follow
that a new method cannot replace it cleanly.

Muddleheaded: it also doesn't follow that a conversion to yet another 
method that was easy to convert to, but didn't depend upon being the
only one, and was easy to convert FROM does not exist (for example,
a voucher system like that proposed for "public" education).

Wrong: the FBI, the state cops, and the city police (not to mention a
private guard service) might all fulfill this function, depending  on
the criminal's motivation.  You wish to argue that they are all part of
the same system?  Fine: I argue that they are all part of the laws of
physics in operation; and I do not propose to step outside THAT system.