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!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Newsflash! [JoSH on Socialis
Message-ID: <28200222@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 24-Oct-85 23:15:00 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.28200222
Posted: Thu Oct 24 23:15:00 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 31-Oct-85 06:11:28 EST
References: <876@water.UUCP>
Lines: 101
Nf-ID: #R:water:-87600:inmet:28200222:000:5174
Nf-From: inmet!nrh    Oct 24 23:15:00 1985


>/* Written  1:51 pm  Oct 23, 1985 by mrh@cybvax0 in inmet:net.politics.t */
>In article <28200183@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes:
>> >/* Written  6:07 pm  Oct 17, 1985 by mrh@cybvax0 in inmet:net.politics.t */
>> >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.
>...
>> Mike: the notion that the "current system of keeping people from breaking
>> down our doors" depends on being the only one is unsupported, irrelevant,
>> muddleheaded, and wrong.
>> 
>> Unsupported: (so far, anyhow).  Simply saying: "it's there, it works",
>> says nothing about the validity of other systems, particularly (as
>> Jan points out) when the first steps towards libertarian society are so
>> simple and incremental.
>
>Other systems certainly might be valid: but you have not made an argument
>addressing my claim that our system depends on being the only one.  In other
>words, you're yelling "unsupported" and following with a non-sequiteur.

The paragraph was meant to juxtapose two facts:  1. You have stated
that our system of keeping folks from breaking down our doors depends
on being the only one (a so-far unsupported statement) and 
2. (anticipating your argument)  that our current system might work
to a certain degree does NOT imply that it is "the only one" (because
of point 1.)  Clearer now?  This is hardly a non-sequitur.

>> Irrelevant: if it DOES depend on being the only method, it doesn't follow
>> that a new method cannot replace it cleanly.
>
>Not irrelevant.  It means that because they cannot coexist, the replacement
>process must be abrupt, not gradual.  It is difficult to perform "clean"
>abrupt replacements of social mechanisms.

Excuse me, but this is just plain silly.  One needn't suddenly change the
method of "door preservation" in order to change it.  Presumably the
actual method is evolving all the time, and evolutionary steps that led
it to tolerate other door-preserving methods are certainly plausible
(for example, there is a town right now that hire their police through
private agency, in effect they hire a police agency rather than having their
own police force).

>> Muddleheaded: it also doesn't follow that a conversion to yet another 
>> method that was easy to convert to, but didn't depend upon being the
>> only one, and was easy to convert FROM does not exist (for example,
>> a voucher system like that proposed for "public" education).
>
>Speak for yourself.  You've selected an example that NEVER depended on
>being the only system.  Private education has always existed in the US,
>that public education has partially supplanted.

I've suggested as an ILLUSTRATION the METHOD used in supplying another 
"public good".  Nowhere (I hope) do I suggest that the voucher system
had to supplant a universally public-school system.  My point was that
in the case of public schools supplanting private ones, the voucher
system provides a way for a marketplace to resume.  I'm not implying
that a voucher system was ALL that had to be done to introduce private
law-enforcement, merely that the mechanism had worked elsewhere and was
encouraging.

>Not to mention your sentence is atrocious.  You must have a secret
>hankering to write undeciperable regulations for a government agency.  :-)

It was a little involved.  Sorry about that.  Thanks for the effort
that must have gone into understanding it.   In a similar vein, I take
it you have the contract for spelling words like "undecipherable" and
"non-sequitur" :-)

>> Wrong: the FBI, the state cops, and the city police (not to mention a
>> private guard service) might all fulfill this function, depending  on
>> the criminal's motivation.  You wish to argue that they are all part of
>> the same system?  Fine: I argue that they are all part of the laws of
>> physics in operation; and I do not propose to step outside THAT system.
>
>If they are part of the same enforcement system, then you haven't shown me
>to be wrong. 

If they WERE part of the same enforcement system, they'd cooperate 
fully.  Your local police would have access to FBI files, and there would
be no possibility of jurisdictional disputes.  In fact, the FBI limits
access to those files, the IRS tried and failed at least once to get hold
of Ohio Motor Vehicle records (this from insider info, sorry, no references).
You will also note that New Hampshire police are not noted for their
cooperation with Mass. police regarding the enforcement of Mass's 
Sales and Use Tax.

> Your final sentence is a classic fallacy: it's analogous to
>the following example.

Okay, Mike, who gives the orders to the State troopers, to the
Pinkerton Guards, to FBI field men, to the Guardian Angels?  What
COMMON authority controls them all?

>[siamese fish analogy]

Not at all.  I'm pointing out that what you're calling our current system
is in fact quite varied, and not all under one authority, so it's hard
to tell whether we really have "one system", except for purposes of
discussion.