Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!bbnccv!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Newsflash! [JoSH on Socialis
Message-ID: <28200221@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 24-Oct-85 23:12:00 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.28200221
Posted: Thu Oct 24 23:12:00 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 31-Oct-85 06:10:54 EST
References: <876@water.UUCP>
Lines: 123
Nf-ID: #R:water:-87600:inmet:28200221:000:5955
Nf-From: inmet!janw    Oct 24 23:12:00 1985


[ the usual odd-even quoting conventions apply ]
[Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh]
> > > Right.  Instead, your forces of freedom from government is proposing to
> > > throw away our current system of keeping people from breaking down our
> > > doors for an untried and probably impractical one.  The systems can't
> > > coexist: the current one depends on being the only one.

> > Right question, wrong answer. This test of (temporary) coexistence
> > *is* all-important for a new social order proposal.
> > [And the libertarian proposals pass it]: ...
> > On the other hand, I see nothing in libertarian proposals
> > that cannot be introduced incrementally, and tried, and tested
> > without prejudging the next step.
> > [Explanation why I think so]

>[Mike again]
> Anything can be introduced incrementally, without prejudging the next
> step.  For example, elimination of civil rights.  Let's start by removing
> them from those who espouse libertarianism.
> [A list of other allegedly non-beneficial incremental changes].

Apparently you missed the logical structure of my argument .
(I am not saying it is your fault, perhaps I didn't make it clear).
Let me try again. 

I was not proving here that libertarianism is right, or that 
all arguments against it are wrong. I was proving it of one
argument only, yours, quoted above. You say: the systems can't
coexist. I say: yes, they can, e.g. People's Court (a libertarian
system) coexists with other courts. Since one example does not
prove it, I challenged you to offer a contrary example.

The test of gradualism and the test of coexistence are one and
the same. If new ways are incrementally introduced, they
coexist with old ways. 

Let us take your example above, depriving libertarians  of  civil
rights. Since this is not incremental enough for my taste, let us
assume they are deprived of one right only, say, posting  to  the
net.   Is it a Good Thing ? Not in my opinion. Does it involve
coexistence of new and old social order ? Obviously: full rights
for most people and most rights for some people coexist with
denial of some rights to some people.

Is this less dangerous than going the whole hog at once ?
You bet. In the hypothetical situation, the missing right
would be quickly restored through the activities of liberta-
rians off the net and of fair-minded non-libertarians off and on
the net. 

Not all programs and theories of social change possess this  pro-
perty:  that  they  can  be  phased  in, introduced without first
breaking up the old social order. E.g.,  Bernstein's  revisionist
Marxism  did, while Lenin's brand didn't. Trotsky went further in
this direction than  Bukharin,  as  he  thought  it  a  necessary
precondition  to  eliminate all alternatives *globally* (world
revolution). Owen's socialism passed the test, Babeuf's didn't.
Usually, bottom-up, grass roots programs are gradualist,
top-down, centralist ones aren't. Now, can you imagine
a *centralist* libertarianism ?

You need this guarantee of gradualism and coexistence
*especially* for those changes that may not be, in your opinion,
beneficial. 

Let us apply the test of coexistence directly to the law and ord-
er  problems  in the context of which you made your incorrect but
thought-provoking statement.
I repeat the quote:

> > > Right.  Instead, your forces of freedom from government is proposing to
> > > throw away our current system of keeping people from breaking down our
> > > doors for an untried and probably impractical one.  The systems can't
> > > coexist: the current one depends on being the only one.

Not only they can, but they do coexist. Some  people  hire  body-
guards  or  protection agencies. Other people create neighborhood
patrols.  Still other people  rely  on  their  firearms  or  judo
skills.  Others on mechanical gadgets.  All these are libertarian
systems of keeping people from breaking the doors. How good  they
are,  is  beside  the  point.  If indeed the "current one" (and I
presume you are not speaking of these other current ones) depend-
ed on being the only one *it would not exist right now*.

> Even incremental changes rock the current social order, and there
> are classes that will benefit and suffer for those changes.

The second part of this sentence is irrelevant to the argument.
As for rocking the boat, sure, but incremental changes rock it
slightly, so it does not capsize.  

> No, I won't knock alternatives, gradualism, or  coexistence.  All
> are fine and groovy. The point is that for the alternatives to be
> successful, they MUST be competitive. And the most basic competi-
> tion is in coercive power.

Sure, if they cannot compete they won't succeed. And if we  haven't
burnt  (or  capsized) our boats, we can, after an experiment, stick
with the old, cozy, coercive system. So why worry ?

> Libertarians want the slow, namby-pamby market forces to  be  the
> predominant  coercive power maintained by positive feedback.  But
> market forces are orders of magnitude slower than  political  or-
> ganizations  such  as  nations  and businesses, and can easily be
> disrupted by physical coercion. So one  government  service  that
> cannot  be phased out is dominance.  

I asked for an example of what cannot be  phased  out  *assuming*
the alternative works as well or better. Since you refuse to make
the assumption, you cannot deny my conditional statement.

As for *your* point above, tell me why the following does not
make as much sense, and of the same kind of sense.

] Democrats  want the slow, namby-pamby constitutional forces to  be  the
] predominant  coercive power maintained by citizen participation.  But
] constitutional forces are orders of magnitude slower than  direct action
] organizations  such  as  police and stormtroopers, and can easily be
] disrupted by physical coercion. So one  government  service  that
] cannot  be phased out is arbitrary violence.

		Jan Wasileswsky