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!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!think!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Newsflash! [JoSH on Socialis
Message-ID: <801@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 26-Oct-85 13:16:22 EST
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.801
Posted: Sat Oct 26 13:16:22 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 31-Oct-85 06:25:49 EST
References: <876@water.UUCP> <28200221@inmet.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 102
Summary: 

In article <28200221@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes:
> > > > 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.
>
> 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.

People's Court is as libertarian as motherhood is American.  In other
words, there are elements of systems (libertarianism in its various
flavors and our current system) held in common.

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.

> 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. 

Unless positive feedback blows up the whole system.  Consider the analogy
of a room with an electric spark in it.  If the atmosphere is entirely
oxygen, it's stable.  If it's entirely methane, it's also stable.  If
you gradually change from one to the other, BOOM!

> > 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 ?

I worry because you seem so sure that we won't burn or capsize.  See my
analogy above.  Coercive power is a very fundamental aspect of every
social system.  Playing with it is playing with fire.  Right now our
fire is nice and safe in a central stove where the combustion is well
regulated, the heat is mostly radiated rather than up the chimmney,
and the products of combustion are disposed of properly.  The
libertarian solution strikes me as analogous to heating with zillions of
disposable lighters, and hoping they don't burn the house down, use up
all the oxygen, ignite eachother, or get carried out the door by anyone
who walks in.

> > 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.

I didn't refuse to make the assumption: I showed where in the phasing
out the process fails due to positive feedback.  Like my gas explosion
analogy.  Or, if you want another analogy, total disarmament will keep
the peace better than our current state.  But if we totally disarm nations
before we disarm police, the police will take over.  Etc.

What do all these analogies prove?  They certainly don't prove that you
are wrong: but they do show falsehood in the assumption that gradual change
between two states is always possible.  When proposing a new kind of social
organization, something that we really haven't seen in thousands of years
of political history, one has to suspect that it wasn't implemented because
of problems like instability of intermediate states.  As technology and
the social environment change, former impossibilities may become
realizable, so we must keep open minds.  But what I'd like to see from
libertarians is not just an unreachable carrot on a stick, but an
exploration of the routes to that carrot.  Without those routes, I
migth suspect that you are showing me the carrot to obtain the side
effect of my pulling your cart.

> 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.

That's why the presidency was created, and that's how the presidency is
used.  The president can declare martial law in emergency.
He is chief of the armed forces.  Etc.  That is why our democratic
government can survive in an environment of direct-action organizations,
because it hasn't thrown out its "birthright" of direct action.

What is the libertarian alternative?
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh