Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC830713); site snow.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!teddy!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!mcvax!ukc!qtlon!flame!ubu!snow!rjc
From: rjc@snow.UUCP (R.caley)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: CONSISTENCY?  Still waiting...
Message-ID: <318@snow.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 12-Jan-85 03:42:15 EST
Article-I.D.: snow.318
Posted: Sat Jan 12 03:42:15 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 20-Jan-85 01:02:13 EST
References: <2167@umcp-cs.UUCP> <621@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA>
Organization: Computer Science Department, Warwick University, UK
Lines: 51


>No, libertarianism is not anarchy. What differentiates a libertarian
>government from an anarchy, and indeed from any statist government, is
>that a libertarian government does *not* have the right to initiate
>force. It may have a monopoly on force, and on being able to decide
>when it will be used, but it may only use force in response to force.

Why do people associate anarchism with violence...

   Anarchists want to minimise the interference with the freedom of the
individual from government **and** other individuals.That is you should not do
something which unfairly restricts the freedom of annother.

Hitting (shooting,stabbing...) someone sure as hell restricts them :-)

The dodgey bit is "unfairly" most right wing anarchists beleave in free trade
and hence in competition in the market place,and if I make a profit I must
reduce your chance of doing so and this brings up the idea of monopolies
and so on This is all very shakey since it relies on each persons
interpretation of fair.

This is all based on the idea (which someone brought up on the net) that Right
& wrong are not fixed but depend on the individual concerned.This is my belief
and I have never seen a good argument to the contrary (if we discount religion
and such which are not open to argument).If anyone does have a real
argument in favor of a universal set of moral standards please post it (no
dogmatic "This is correct because {Jesus;God;Karl(or Harpo:-) Marx;my mother}
said so" please - post these to net.religion.{xtian;all;marxist;me} )

Given that morals are not fixed,no one has the right to tell me that what I am
doing is "bad" without showing me that it harms someone elses freedom.Hence
moral laws (pornography,drugs,prostitution,vagrancy....) have no place
since if I wish to get high on caffine (or even (yeuch) tobacco) then why
shouldn't I (if I don't brieath smoke over others hence removing their
right *not* to smoke)?The only excuse for drug laws (for example -similaly for
the others) is to stop the hoodlems who exploit others addictions (addmitedly
these people are very wrong in most peoples book) but if the drugs wern't
illegal then they couldn't survive anyway - how many cigarette pushers do you
know?

Well that lot should stir up someones typeing finger (it's better than working
isn't it?)   :-)
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

    "In the beginning was a flame ...... "
                        Paul Kantner.

                .......... mcvax!ukc!flame!ubu!snow!rjc

[ Any opinions in the above crawled in while I wasn't looking ]