Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!decvax!cca!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Re: (micromotives & macrobehavior)
Message-ID: <28200087@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19-Sep-85 20:45:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.28200087
Posted: Thu Sep 19 20:45:00 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 23-Sep-85 00:00:14 EDT
References: <3476@topaz.UUCP>
Lines: 61
Nf-ID: #R:topaz:-347600:inmet:28200087:000:3131
Nf-From: inmet!janw    Sep 19 20:45:00 1985


>>  Unfortunately, tighter political systems tend to outfight
>>the looser ones, given equal economic and demographic assets.

> [STella Calvert (guest on ...!decvax!frog!wjr)]
> I currently live in a "looser political system"; this system places many
> restrictions on the weaponry I can stockpile for my defense.  In libertaria, I
> would be free to purchase the weapons I felt were necessary, hire the
> assistance I required, and know that my neighbors, likewise free, would be
> ready to defend our common condition of non-coercion by killing the coercers.
> In a "looser political system", the state still has a monopoly on coercion,
> and on defense (of their right to coerce).  Not only wouldn't I cross the 
> street to defend this statist right, if I did want to, the state would say 
> "Sorry, you're female, you can't go into combat situations (unless maybe 
> someday we desperately need you)."

 I believe you've made two very good points: to paraphrase, in  a
libertarian  setting  citizens  might  be better *able* to defend
themselves, and more *willing* to do so. However, this would seem
to  be  more significant for guerilla-type warfare than for other
kinds of war. I wonder if you have thought  through  (I  haven't)
various possible scenarios of a foreign aggression against Liber-
taria ?

> But (I think I hear a voice crying) how are you going to defend yourself
> against a rival group with nuclear weapons?  Simple.  I'm not.  If you convert
> me from a productive person to a vortex of plasma, I won't be much use to you.

You would - as an example to others; it worked in Hiroshima.
(Not that I don't like your attitude ... if everyone had it,
it *might* be effective).

> Nor will my house, factory, or file of unpublished works in progress.  So nuke
> me!   that can be blackmailed into surrendering for the individual.>

There are always organizations, governmental or not. Trade unions
negotiate  and  sometimes  surrender  for their members. In WWII,
Norwegian government did not surrender; it  left  the  country. So
Quisling  took  over. When the USSR "liberated" Poland, there was
no government (the one in London they  didn't  recognize).   They
installed one of their own.  Masses of individuals can surrender,
too, through panic. It is the aggressor's  business  to  organize
panic, and nuking you might come in very handy.

Let me make my position clear: I am NOT arguing that nothing can ever
work except what we have now. I am also not arguing that
sticking to the status quo is the safest course.
 I do believe it all takes a lot of hard thinking and creative,
probably quite unexpected, ideas; and then experimentation,
and testing - there's always another bug ...

 What surprises me on this net, is the paucity of constructive
ideas. Where are all the Utopias - isn't this just the place
for them? It is mostly "liberty good, slavery bad" on one side,
and "we'll coerce you to help the poor" on the other: a tug
back and forth in one dimension.

 Come on, folks : you can do better than that.

		Jan Wasilewsky