Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.14 $; site uiucdcs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!renner
From: renner@uiucdcs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: gunpoint
Message-ID: <29200147@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 22-Sep-84 16:10:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.29200147
Posted: Sat Sep 22 16:10:00 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Sep-84 19:23:58 EDT
References: <542@gloria.UUCP>
Lines: 25
Nf-ID: #R:gloria:-54200:uiucdcs:29200147:000:1136
Nf-From: uiucdcs!renner    Sep 22 15:10:00 1984

>  >>	Perhaps we who are libertarians are just a little more
>  >>	concerned at how tacky it is to point guns at people and force
>  >>	them to go along with us (however well-intentioned the cause).
>  
>  "Tacky" is hardly the word!  And those of us who are not libertarians
>  accept that in any society the people with guns and followers will
>  force us to go along with them.  When central goverment relinquishes
>  or loses this power, gangs assume it.
>  					-- Col. G. L. Sicherman

Any group with guns and followers that chooses to force others to "go along" 
with them *is* a government.  This is the distinguishing characteristic of
governments.  When "central government" is replaced by "gangs," all we
really have is a change of government -- most probably, a change for the
worse.

But it wouldn't have to be that way.  There is no reason why I couldn't
gather guns and followers in group self-defense.  Others could come to
trade, or join if they accepted the rules of the group.  Those who came
to steal or subdue would be fought.  All without the protection of
"central government."

Scott Renner
ihnp4!uiucdcs!renner