Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!dual!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: (micromotives & macrobehavior) Message-ID: <761@cybvax0.UUCP> Date: Tue, 17-Sep-85 16:16:05 EDT Article-I.D.: cybvax0.761 Posted: Tue Sep 17 16:16:05 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 20-Sep-85 05:38:02 EDT References: <3677@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA Lines: 47 In article <3677@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> josh@topaz.UUCP (J Storrs Hall) writes: > In article <715@psivax.UUCP> friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes: > > Just what market forces are going to recruit, train, equip, > >and organize an effective resistance force before the country is > >essentiallty completely overrun? Under these cicumstances it is > >*preparedness*, not size and wealth that determine victory. > > Neither market nor government can "recruit, train, equip, > and organize" an army (or a set of retaliatory nuclear missles) > while an invasion is in progress. You've assumed your conclusion, > namely that the market would be unprepared. Friesen's point is that because it will be too late after invasion, market forces would need to maintain preparedness. Since nobody has yet seen market forces do this, it's up to you to convince us that they would. > A market for defense [...] would have the country under > a wide variety of schemes, some of which might work. Great. Your brilliant working scheme sucessfully killed a platoon. The whole rest of libertaria has been conquored, and you are surrounded. Why didn't the other schemes work too? Well, some conflicted with eachother because there was no coordination, and others that would have worked well because they were coordinated were betrayed by sellouts to the enemy, pursuing their own best interests (you bet there's a market for traitors.) > I'd personally > favor an assassination defense: permeate the other country with agents > and assassinate its political leaders, instead of slaughtering thousands > of luckless doughfoots, who were probably drafted anyway. Anyway, > you can come up with your own scheme--and sell it *concurrently* > with mine. Doubtless this appeals to you because it is cheap, if you can make it work. Unfortunately, it has many flaws. Why didn't it work during WWII? Because leaders can simply restrict access to themselves. Nor is there a shortage of power-hungry people in the chain of command to assume the vacated positions. And YOU are even more vulnerable, because of the openess of your society. Why shouldn't your business competitor have you assassinated? How would you know who did it? Or perhaps the attacking state would pre-emptively assassinate the captains of industry of libertaria? After all, you'd have no barriers to infiltration, no immigration service, FBI, NSA, or CIA. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh