Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 v7 ucbtopaz-1.8; site ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!ucbvax!ucbtopaz!mwm From: mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: CONSISTENCY? Still waiting... Message-ID: <621@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA> Date: Mon, 7-Jan-85 12:20:10 EST Article-I.D.: ucbtopaz.621 Posted: Mon Jan 7 12:20:10 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 9-Jan-85 05:46:28 EST References: <2167@umcp-cs.UUCP> Organization: Univ. of Calif., Berkeley CA USA Lines: 35 I do so like being quoted out of context... From flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul Torek) Wed Dec 31 16:00:00 1969 > From: mwm@ea.UUCP (>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. > > The following phrases in you reply are crucial: > 1. "does not have [sic--you mean claim] the right to initiate force" > 2. "have a monopoly on force, and on being able to decide when it > will be used" > > 1 contradicts 2. QED. Paul, read the part of the last sentence that you neglected to quote: "but it may only use force in response to force." Poof, your contradiction vanishes. There is a problem, thougth: no government can have a monopoly on force, unless it has total and complete control over all activities of it's citizens. The best it can claim is an overwhelming superiority of force. But that's all it really needs. > Hoping it's finally sinking in, > Paul V Torek, umcp-cs!flink No, Paul, I don't think you're getting it yet :-).