Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!teddy!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!flink From: flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul Torek) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: CONSISTENCY? Still waiting... Message-ID: <2302@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Sun, 6-Jan-85 21:38:10 EST Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.2302 Posted: Sun Jan 6 21:38:10 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 8-Jan-85 07:53:43 EST References: <2167@umcp-cs.UUCP> <29200183@uiucdcs.UUCP> Reply-To: flink@maryland.UUCP (Paul Torek) Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD Lines: 19 Keywords: libertarianism,government Summary: Still waiting... In article <29200183@uiucdcs.UUCP> renner@uiucdcs.UUCP writes: >A protection agency should have the same right to force as does its >clients; that is, only in an emergency, when the police are not >available. An agency which exceeds these limits on the use of force >will be shut down by the government. Obviously this agency has used >force, so there's no problem with the point #1; the monopoly is >maintained, and there's point #2. > >There's no inconsistency here. And this certainly isn't anarchy. >Is this what Paul's been waiting for? Nope, sorry. The inconsistency remains. As long as the agency uses force only in retaliatory ways, it has a right (by libertarian std's) to do so, and therefore the govt. has no right to stop it. The govern- ment you describe is not consistent w/ libertarianism. QED. "I love it when a plan comes together!" --the self-satisfied iconoclast, Paul V. Torek, (moving to) wucs!wucec1!pvt1047