Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/23/84; site ucbcad.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!decvax!ucbvax!ucbesvax!ucbcad!faustus
From: faustus@ucbcad.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Libertarianism
Message-ID: <2830@ucbcad.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 30-Nov-84 03:38:27 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbcad.2830
Posted: Fri Nov 30 03:38:27 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 2-Dec-84 05:12:03 EST
References: <1837@inmet.UUCP>
Organization: UC Berkeley CAD Group, Berkeley, CA
Lines: 76

> >***** inmet:net.politics / ucbcad!faustus /  9:31 pm  Nov 24, 1984
> >> Don't confuse "society" (which is a function of human interaction) with
> >> "government" which is an attempt to dominate society.  People may owe
> >> much to society, but little or nothing to government.  In particular,
> >> the government tends to claim credit for anything that happens in 
> >> a society, even though the society managed it IN SPITE of the government.
> >
> >A good analogy would be: the government is to society as the skeleton
> >is to the body. 
> 
> Gack.  More like:  the government is to society as the CORSET is to
> the body.
> 
> >It provides security and order, and makes it easier for
> >social interactions to occur. 
> 
> It provides apparent comeliness
> (welfare, AFDC), while avoiding the ugly necessities
> (dieting, exercise, refusal to meddle with the money supply, 
> admitting that even people who do not want to give to charity
> have a right to their earnings) of real 
> comeliness.  It forces those of unusual composition into a mold favored
> by a current fashion, often disrupting the functioning of the inner
> organs to satisfy the vagaries of vanity.  And think!  Where would
> the corset-makers be without a continual usage of corsets?

I like my analogy better. I don't think that government really constricts
people's lives and disrupts their functioning. If the worst thing you
can say about government is that it takes 25% of your income, I'd say
you don't have much of a case. You can say what you want, travel
pretty much where you want, and so forth. You can probably think of a
few counterexamples, but compared to all the good things government
does... 

> >Speculation about what would happen if
> >there were no government is very dangerous, because there is simply
> >no precedent for such a thing. 
> 
> Speculation about life without corsets is very dangerous, because
> (aside from medieval Ireland and Iceland) there is no precedent
> for such a thing.  People are born wearing corsets, just as humanity
> was born with gavel in hand.

Can you give some specifics of life in Medieval Iceland and Ireland?
Conditions then were nothing like they are now, so you have to be careful
of what conclusions you draw. Feudalism isn't exactly libertarianism...

> >At the very least the government provides
> >security from foreign agression, which could never be provided in an
> >anarchistic society.
> 
> Thus the continual invasions of medieval Iceland by other powers, and
> the fact that it took a centrally-organized invasion force (the British)
> a mere couple of centuries to subdue the Irish.

Iceland and Ireland are islands, and islands aren't the easiest places to
invade. Besides, why would you want to sail hundreds of miles to invade
a place called Iceland??

> Wayne: PLEASE do a little reference work before you post anything
> more about libertarian thought.  I suggest you try: "For a New Liberty",
> by Murray Rothbard, who talks a bit about historical Ireland.

I think that discussions on the net should not come down to "You read this
list of books, and I will read yours and we can compare notes". I have
replied to your postings, not to the entire body of libertarian thought.
I must admit that there are points you have brought up that I am not
qualified to deal with properly, but I'm not a political scientist. I've
tried to use common sense arguments against specifically what you
have posted, so don't blame me because I don't know all the details
of the history of Medieval Ireland. If you like you can try to condense
the points you want to make out of this book as a suitable topic for
discussion... For my part I'd suggest that you read "The Welfare State"
by Lester Ward...

	Wayne