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