Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!decvax!yale!inmet!janw From: janw@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Re: Re: Newsflash! [JoSH on Socialis Message-ID: <28200245@inmet.UUCP> Date: Thu, 31-Oct-85 02:01:00 EST Article-I.D.: inmet.28200245 Posted: Thu Oct 31 02:01:00 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 2-Nov-85 08:35:22 EST References: <876@water.UUCP> Lines: 70 Nf-ID: #R:water:-87600:inmet:28200245:000:3746 Nf-From: inmet!janw Oct 31 02:01:00 1985 [Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh] > Perhaps what we really need at this point is a statement of qualitative > differences between libertarianism and our current system. I'd prefer > that you make it, lest someone like JoSH accuse me of pretending to > understand libertarianism. Then we can discuss difficulty of > coexistence and transitions on an agreed basis. I would certainly defer to JoSH and several others on this net in the matter of the definition of libertarian society or system - my libertarian readings are few and new. Having said this, I have no objection to giving my own idea of it. First, by system, I meant a coherent set of parts intended for a common purpose. E.g., UNIX, or Dr X's system for winning at blackjack. A broader definition would be just a set of interacting parts, e.g. the Solar System; but I used the narrower one. (Of course, any other use of terms would do. Just as long as proper distinctions are made). Now, consider crime. The same person might rely for protection on (a) police; (b) friendly neighbors; (c) a trained dog. Togeth- er, they may give him a sense of security; but they are not one system, but three, independent of each other. The first one depends on the existence of state, and is, in that sense, not li- bertarian. The other two are. So this is my definition of a "li- bertarian system" (for this discussion) : its operation does not imply a government. Next let us define a libertarian society. It is one in which coer- cion by government is (a) at a minimum and (b) much less than now. Coercion is understood in the narrowest way, as use or threat of force. (a) defines minarchism: getting along with as little government as possible. If the minimum = 0, it becomes anarchism. If minimum >= what we have now, it is still minar- chism, but hardly libertarianism. Of course, the minimum may change with time. Many libertarians hope that, as new ways of doing without legalized force are discovered and tested, the minimum will tend to zero. If it does not, then even in the minarchist society, libertarian and non-libertarian systems will coexist. If it does, they will coexist during the transi- tion. In any case, there would be more "libertarian systems" and the others would be fewer or weaker, than now. But it is all one continuous spectrum. Now, to add some perspective, I will supplement the above minimal, least-common-denominator, view of libertarianism, with a maximalist and subjective one. Personally I would like to have a society where coercion in the broadest sense - understood as negative reinforcement - legalized or not - is at the minimum, preferably at zero. In my utopia, employees would not be fired (there would be no employees); children would not be punished (though there would be children); no one would so much as reproach another person. And, a fortiori, there would be no government. I have no intellectual opinion as to whether such perfection is likely (except that the future would surprise *all* of us), but the preference is quite sincere. Enough so that I have never accepted an administrative position, my children are never punished etc. (I apologize for this personal note, but pos- sibly understanding what makes people of different views tick, helps understand the views themselves). As for the original topic - dangers of transition - I've just posted a note labelled "Experimentation and Danger" which lists some possible libertarian reforms. Like any concrete proposals, they are likely to be vulnerable; but they might help focus the discussion. If so, help yourself. Jan Wasilewsky