Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!cca!ima!inmet!nrh From: nrh@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Re: CONSISTENCY? Still waiting... Message-ID: <1879@inmet.UUCP> Date: Mon, 14-Jan-85 03:57:24 EST Article-I.D.: inmet.1879 Posted: Mon Jan 14 03:57:24 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 16-Jan-85 15:49:01 EST Lines: 41 Nf-ID: #R:ucbtopaz:0:inmet:7800262:000:2277 Nf-From: inmet!nrh Jan 9 11:42:00 1985 >***** inmet:net.politics / umcp-cs!flink / 9:38 pm Jan 6, 1985 >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. Excuse me, but our government NOW allows some use of force under some circumstances -- between parent and child, for example. Does that make it "not a government" because it is not enforcing a monopoly of force within its borders? Does the inconsistency you seem to see have any consequences? I'd say it does -- it probably shows to be incorrect the original definition of "government". That stipulated, where's the inconsistency? Remember, you're supposed to use "QED" only when the proof is all there, and I notice that there's no quote about the "libertarian" definition of government. By the way, if you do decide to reprint the quote, please also reprint its source, and the quote from renner, above, so that EVERYBODY can see that you're merely arguing that one libertarian used "government" in a way distinct from the way another used it. Never was it more obvious why Thoreau said that "consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" -- as near as I can tell, you're ignoring the real points of libertarianism and "sniping on the boarders". This would not be inappropriate were libertarians promising utopia, or proposing a new mathematics, but seems a singular waste of time when discussing politics (of course, that's probably what politics is for). If this is what made you the "self-satisfied iconoclast", your self must be remarkably easy to satisfy.