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!harvard!think!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Newsflash! [JoSH on Socialis
Message-ID: <794@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 23-Oct-85 13:14:48 EDT
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.794
Posted: Wed Oct 23 13:14:48 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 25-Oct-85 07:24:29 EDT
References: <876@water.UUCP> <28200180@inmet.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 62
Summary: 

In article <28200180@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes:
> On the other hand, I see nothing in libertarian proposals
> that cannot be introduced incrementally, and tried, and tested
> without prejudging the next step.

Anything can be introduced incrementally, without prejudging the next
step.  For example, elimination of civil rights.  Let's start by removing
them from those who espouse libertarianism.

What?  You don't like that idea?  Why not?  It's incremental, and you must
be prejudging.

Even incremental changes rock the current social order, and there are classes
that will benefit and suffer for those changes.  Your task is too persuade
enough of us that your proposed changes will better our circumstances.
That's where libertarianism usually falls on its face: it holds promise of
betterment to those who are already well to do, by removing limitations
(taxes, regulations, etc.) on their power and influence.  The rest of us
who benefit from tax-financed services and protection of laws and regulations
see questionable advantage.

> Every deregulation ,
> each Civil Service staff reduction is a libertarian reform.

If you mean consistent with libertarian thought, fine.  If you mean to
claim some sort of responsability, I'd argue.

However it's obvious that not every reduction is beneficial, and thus
every l;ibertarian reform is not beneficial.  If the social worker who
was fired had the job of detecting fraudulent claims for social security,
and saved more money than his salary by his work, then it is not cost
effective to fire him.  This is a clear example of where a gradual
"libertarian" (by your claim) reform is not beneficial to anyone except
the class of welfare cheats, and certainly not to libertarians. 

> Libertarian systems aplenty exist right now, and coexist
> with coercive ones.

"Libertarian" only if you relax the definition enough to include anything
normal people call free market.  Tell me about libertarian systems of
government, the ultimate goal on your agenda (I presume-- please correct me
if I am wrong.)

> I challenge you to name *one* government
> service that couldn't be phased out gradually, provided
> (I don't prejudge this) alternative systems are successful.
> E.g., from courts to arbitration (like People's Court),
> from police to Guardian Angels. Again: don't knock these
> alternatives, that's not the point. The point is gradualism
> and coexistence.

No, I won't knock alternatives, gradualism, or coexistence.  All are fine
and groovy.  The point is that for the alternatives to be successful,
they MUST be competitive.  And the most basic competition is in
coercive power.  Libertarians want the slow, namby-pamby market forces to
be the predominant coercive power maintained by positive feedback.
But market forces are orders of magnitude slower than political organizations
such as nations and businesses, and can easily be disrupted by physical
coercion.  So one government service that cannot be phased out is dominance.
-- 

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