Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.17 $; 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: <29200151@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 2-Oct-84 22:27:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.29200151
Posted: Tue Oct  2 22:27:00 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 4-Oct-84 01:51:55 EDT
References: <542@gloria.UUCP>
Lines: 24
Nf-ID: #R:gloria:-54200:uiucdcs:29200151:000:1085
Nf-From: uiucdcs!renner    Oct  2 21:27:00 1984

>>   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 (renner@uiucdcs)

>   This is called Feudalism, but Feudalism is much more difficult to
>   practice when you can't build semi-invulnerable castles (that only
>   require a few people to defend).  Of course, as the Man said,
>   "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.".
>					-- Stephen Woods (scw@cepru

I was all set to flame, but then I reread my original article -- and by
damn, it does sound a little like feudalism.  The trouble is with the
word "followers".  I would like to replace it with "companions", or
"other group members", or even "co-defenders of the people's
libertarian movement against the corrupt influence of statist
imperialists"

Now it doesn't sound like feudalism.

Scott Renner
{pur-ee,ihnp4}!uiucdcs!renner