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!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!bbnccv!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Logic, fact, preference, and social
Message-ID: <28200191@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 22-Oct-85 13:56:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.28200191
Posted: Tue Oct 22 13:56:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 25-Oct-85 07:42:05 EDT
References: <234@umich.UUCP>
Lines: 16
Nf-ID: #R:umich:-23400:inmet:28200191:000:673
Nf-From: inmet!janw    Oct 22 13:56:00 1985


Correction: in my response to Tony Wuersch I overstated my position:

> You summed up the whole point of this example. Human societies
> *are* addicted to coercion. Just look at history, almost any page.
> The irrational inability to refuse a  second drink of blood.
> Cold turkey may be our best chance. 

"Cold turkey" is a bad expression here. I meant *complete abstinence*,
but not *abrupt transition*. Even though intermediate phases are
unstable and backsliding is possible, I believe the dangers of
social revolution - in any direction - to be far greater.
But a non-coercive change - such as  a change to non-coercion
- is unlikely to be abrupt.

		Jan Wasilewsky