Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!cca!ima!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: gunpoint - (nf)
Message-ID: <1704@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 3-Oct-84 00:38:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.1704
Posted: Wed Oct  3 00:38:51 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 4-Oct-84 05:52:20 EDT
Lines: 41

#R:gloria:-54200:inmet:7800140:000:2065
inmet!nrh    Sep 30 14:55:00 1984

>***** inmet:net.politics / mit-eddie!mit-eddie /  7:31 am  Sep 30, 1984
>Most governments ARE nothing but gangs with guns, these are called
>totalitarian states.  Other governments are at least somewhat responsive
>to the need of the populace, the U.S. govt. is one of those.  
>
>GIVEN THAT NATURE ABHORS A POWER VACUUM, INTELLIGENT PEOPLE SHOULD
>TRY TO FILL IT WITH SOMETHING THAT IS AT WORST BENIGN, LIBERTARIANS, WHO
>WOULD LEAVE THAT VACUUM WIDE OPEN, ARE MERELY LEAVING THEMSELVES 
>VULNERABLE TO ATTACK FROM NON-GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES, WHICH WILL MOST
>LIKELY BE MUCH LESS (AT LEAST IN THIS COUNTRY) AFFECTED BY PUBLIC OPINION.

About half of libertarians are anarchists, that is, they want NO
state.  The rest of us would prefer a minimal state with little or no
mechanism for increasing its power.  Both types of libertarians
would be happy to cut back the state by about 95-98%, and then we'd no doubt
start squabbling among ourselves about the last 5-2%.

As for your assumption that a government should be affected by public
opinion, it strikes me as a fine scare tactic (gosh, if the government
isn't sensitive to MY opinion, it might lock me up), but since the
mechanism by which government is affected by public opinion leaves it
pathetically open to special-interest-induced growth, it's not clear to
me that one shouldn't wish for a government that CANNOT respond to
certain "public opinions".

There are (happily) parts of our own constitution that do this, and
have done it well.  There is no state religion, and there'd have to 
be a pretty strong majority to impose one (not just a sensitivity
to public opinion -- you'd need a 2/3'rds majority in congress).

On the other hand, we have the "National Endowment for the Arts".
Isn't it wonderful that our government is sensitive enough to 
public opinion to commit extortion and theft to support the arts?
Surely our lives must be enriched by such a policy.

Sensitivity to popular opinion has its points -- the problem
is that government will do immoral and illegal things to 
pander to it.