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