Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site umich.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!mb2c!umich!torek From: torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek ) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Defense in Libertaria, and other Amazing Stories Message-ID: <257@umich.UUCP> Date: Wed, 2-Oct-85 00:28:16 EDT Article-I.D.: umich.257 Posted: Wed Oct 2 00:28:16 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 3-Oct-85 04:46:42 EDT References: <3476@topaz.UUCP> <28200073@inmet.UUCP> <567@x.UUCP> <239@umich.UUCP> <779@x.UUCP> Reply-To: torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek ) Organization: University of Michigan, EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI Lines: 56 Summary: It still cain't be done, Vern! In article <779@x.UUCP> wjr@x.UUCP (STella Calvert) writes: >>Not unless there is a very strong community spirit and you have very brave >>neighbors. Otherwise many neighbors will cop out, either fleeing or hoping >>that the rest of the community will succeed while she (the cop-out-er) >>covers her ass. Before the war, the cop-out-ers also don't contribute to >>the town's (or region's) Buy-a-tank-and-some-antitank-missiles Fund. > >I wouldn't contribute to the Tanks for the Invasion Fund either. But if I've >armed my neighborhood defenses, tanks would not be a major problem. Landscape >repair might be, though. What percentage of the population is militarily >effective in the United Statist Army? Mines aren't going to be a very cost-effective idea without some more mobile defenses, but let the experts debate that one. In a war, virtually the whole working population of USA is militarily effective. Of course, chickenhearted Libertaria-ns could man the factories too, I suppose, but the problem is liable to be that they won't stick around to do so. >And I assume that there will be what _you_ call cop outs. I accept that there >are people who think killing is wrong under any circumstances. [...] Other >people may doubt the value of dying for their rights. Or rather, the value of dying for *other people's* rights: my fighting for Libertaria spreads benefits thinly to many Libertaria-ns, only one of whom is myself. >... It's in my interest to protect them, because a threat against one >of us is a threat against us all. Yes if you count altruistic concern among your "interests" (the sense of "interest" being "things you're interested in" rather than "self-interest"). A narrowly selfish person would think, however, that it was in his interest to be a free rider: the small chance that *his* support would make the diff- erence of which side won being outweighed by the sizable chance that he'd get his ass blown off. >I've discussed this in another article, but the nut is this. I will not live >in a libertaria unless I succeed in selling the idea that coercion must be >resisted. That it is both stupid and dangerous to surrender to blackmail. >Unless individual responsibility for safety becomes a widely distributed >value, there will not be a libertaria to resist nuclear blackmail. You assert: 1) Libertaria will not arrive unless people come to have these attitudes you describe. 2) If people have these attitudes nuclear blackmail will not work, so it won't be used. You hint: 3) these attitudes make perfect sense. 3) is far from obvious; I think many people would have to become a lot less selfish before they could ever accept 3). 2) I'll grant you, though I wonder if aggressive states will *realize* the futility of nuclear blackmail even if it *is* futile. 1) is false: I would accept Libertaria if I thought that govt was as dangerous and inefficient as most libertarians think, even though I would never accept the irrational base values most libertarians take as axioms. --Paul V. Torek torek@umich