Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site u1100s.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!spuxll!abnji!u1100a!u1100s!sjs
From: sjs@u1100s.UUCP (Stan Switzer)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: A couple of fariy tales
Message-ID: <192@u1100s.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 10-Mar-85 16:11:37 EST
Article-I.D.: u1100s.192
Posted: Sun Mar 10 16:11:37 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 12-Mar-85 22:08:08 EST
References: <820@oliven.UUCP>
Reply-To: sjs@u1100s.UUCP (Stan Switzer)
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway, NJ
Lines: 111
Summary: 

Once upon a time in a Liberteria far, far away:

In article <820@oliven.UUCP> danw@oliven.UUCP (danw) writes:
> The concept of private police is a central  piece of Libertarian ideology.
. . .
> 	-> Item : There are no laws , as we are familiar with them, at present.
> In a Libertarian Free State  (LFS)  there is no LAW against burglary.
> If a person breaks into my house, steals my TV, and is later apprehended,
> he will NOT be charged with first or second degree burglary.  ( The law book
> is NOT the injured party here.  I am.)
> 	My renta-pig agency will provide detective and incarceration services
> (or subcontract with those who do).  These services are not provided free.
> My basic monthly fee and insurance policy will cover these things.  However,
> we all benefit from passing  costs onto the criminal.
> As a result, the person 
> who initiated the use of force ( stole my TV) finds himself as a defendant
> charged with causing perhaps 20 or 30 thousand dollars worth of damage.
> Police, lawyers, judges, insurance agents, and me, all want a piece
> of this guy. 
> If he looses the case, there will be a large judgment to pay. -> Please note
> the taxpayers do not subsidize the process in any way. <-
> Me, my insurance company , and my renta-pig company have
> petitioned the court to
> hear our case ( we have posted a performance bond , so the court will get
> its fee no mater what happens).
. . .
> 	The renta-pig agency MUST carry MASSIVE insurance policies ( similar 
> to medical malpractice insurance) to guard against losing false imprisonment
> and brutality cases.
. . .
> >Suppose I owe you $1,000 and refuse to pay.  You decide to use
> >force to collect your debt, so you send your police to my house to
> >force me to pay up.  They are met by a squad of MY police who
> >say that they do not recognize the legitimacy of your claim.
> 
> >Result: gang warfare.
>  
> 	No.
> 
> 	The result is you would be informed (politely) that they (your
> renta-pig agency ) do NOT do windows, OR collect bad debts.
> 
> 						danw

And they all lived happily ever after.

But seriously, what's the difference between:
  1)  Paying taxes.
  2)  Paying for loads of "social insurance."
  3)  Paying for protection from the mob.

Another question:
  The concept that "the Law is the injured party" is a very useful one,
  and one which we tend to forget.  Ask Joseph K. what it is like without
  a codified system of Law.  (See Franz Kafka: _The_Castle_, _The_Trial_)
  Exactly how does a court make its decisions without a system of Law?

Another question:
  Do libertarian dictionaries contain the word "corruption?"

Still another question:
  Really what we have is a layered system of laws.  At the top we have
  the detailed "code and regulation" level of law.  Below that we have
  a level of law dealing with "principles" of law.  Below that we have
  the law of human nature.  This is known as the "law of the jungle."
  Ideally a government should be an instrument of the Law, and not
  the converse.  I see an unfortunate reversal taking place.  The government
  should administrate the "code and regulation" level of the law, in order
  to best carry out the principles of the Law.  This is what
  Constitutionalism is all about.  The current U.S. system is not
  perfect, and it is getting worse and worse as time goes by. 
  I fully expect to see a MAJOR change in our system of government
  within my lifetime (if I live that long :-).  But the Libertarians
  seem to want to throw the baby out with the bath-water.  Somewhere
  between "Big Brother" and "Law of the jungle" there has to be a
  middle ground.  Why can't anyone understand that?

Yet still another question:
  People WILL organize.  Period.  It might be well nigh impossible to
  avoid being a member of such an organization.  Indeed, the local
  "organization" might look _highly_unfavorably_ on those who do not
  support them.  I really do not see the situation as being different
  from that in international affairs (or the "Families," for that matter),
  and can easily see Liberteria degenerate into a feudal system of
  fiefdoms.  How do we get around the basic human weakness
  of "us or them?"

Really the problem is just this:
  A free society cannot operate well unless people are willing and
  able to treat others as good neighbors.  This means among other
  things:

  1) People have to be willing to help each other out in a pinch.

  2) People have to be able to work for the common good, where such,
     in fact, exists.  Public works are an obvious example.  I think
     that police might be another good example.  The common defense
     is also another good example.

  3) People have to be able to mind their own business.

This, too, is perhaps a fairy tale, but it is the truth nonetheless.
In the rare cases where a group of people can follow this set of guidelines
they can be truly free.  In all other cases, there are compromises.

A final question:
  Which compromises are you willing to make?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stan Switzer     |  "Much to my surprise / When I opened my eyes
ihnp4!u1100s!sjs |   I was a victim / Of the great compromise" - John Prine