Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site x.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ucbvax!ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!cybvax0!frog!x!wjr
From: wjr@x.UUCP (Bill Richard)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Free Riders
Message-ID: <815@x.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 22-Oct-85 23:11:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: x.815
Posted: Tue Oct 22 23:11:12 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 26-Oct-85 07:45:55 EDT
References: <3476@topaz.UUCP> <28200073@inmet.UUCP>
Reply-To: wjr@x.UUCP (STella Calvert)
Organization: Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA
Lines: 91

In article <300@umich.UUCP> torek@eecs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek ) writes:
>In article <800@x.UUCP> wjr@x.UUCP (STella Calvert) writes:
>>(How dangerous and inefficient DO you think government is?  Mail, please!)
>
>News, sorry!  (How else do you expect me to make the Top 25 News Submitters
>list?)
>
>It depends on the government.  Ours:  remarkably non-dangerous, but serious-
>ly inefficient, but probably NOT so inefficient that it is worse than nothing
>in its effect on externality problems (cf. the debate between L. Kolodney,
>me, and Nat Howard).

OK, here's a place we still disagree.  I still maintain that the lack of a
centralized government that can be terrorized into submission would be an
improvement over the present situation.  That allowing _any_ individual to
coerce is a threat to my security.  And that a government is a collection of
_individuals_ engaged in a coercive conspiracy to monopolize the use of 
force.  

>I've been thinking about minimal sufficient common values myself;
>but not for a system of (non-?)government, but rather an open-ended network
>of people working on worldwide problems in general, but allowing for wide
>(but not total) disagreement (to some extent, such a thing already exists).

OK -- since you want to be a top 25 poster, how about starting a set of
subjects, one for each value you think necessary for a society in which you
would be comfortable.  I already know we won't agree on all of them. 8-)

>>Thank you for pointing out that willingness to punish defectors from
>>non-aggression has to be a primitive.  To me, with MY blindspots, it was
>>axiomatic to the point of invisibility. Thank you sir! So let me restate.  I
>>will not form a libertaria with people who do not agree that any instance of
>>coercion  is a threat against their personal right to be free of coercion, nor
>>will I continue to contract with people who renege on this minimal
>>requirement.

Is this why you say my version of libertaria doesn't sound very libertarian?
If so, why?  I grant you the freedom to associate with people on whatever
basis you choose, I tell you the conditions under which I will associate with
you, and I will do my damnedest not to interfere with your associations so
long as they do not (as do the UStatists) attempt to coerce me.

>I would heartily agree to such a requirement myself.  In fact, I think lots
>of people would, and would take it seriously.
>
>>  If that is a condition you dislike, we simply won't live in the
>>same anarchia or move to the same libertaria.  If you have some other 
>>way of handling the free rider issue, let me hear it.
>
>I certainly do:  force.  (I didn't say you'd like it!)  Of course, the
>instrument of force (i.e. non-minarchist government) creates externality
>problems of its own -- no question about that.  Whether these are worse
>is a tough empirical question, but I think not -- that is, given most
>people's present attitudes toward free-riding.  On the other hand, maybe
>we can get people to take the kind of attitude you suggest, in which
>case maybe government will no longer be a bargain.

That's why I'm here -- government isn't a bargain, by my lights, but the only
way I can get rid of it is through persuasion.  I don't expect to succeed 
in my lifetime unless there are major advances in life extension, but I might.

>>BTW, since I'm fairly new to this group, if you would prefer to send mail, 
>>OK, but I want to hear a bit more about "irrational base values".  
>
>Don't worry.  I was just being a bit iconoclastic, and I was making my
>point about 1):  namely, that one doesn't have to be an Ayn Rand fan or
>a Robert Nozick fan to be willing to try your kind of society.  

>>For 2, well, we might have to lose a couple cities the size of Ann Arbor or 
>>Ypsi.  Or LA.  I'd love a bugfix for that one.  _I_ _believe_ that 
>>negatively reinforcing terrorists and coercers is worth 
>>spending the only life I am willing (or able) to control, mine.  
>
>I agree; if the terrorists would lose interest after nuking Ann Arbor, and
>a population the size of the U.S.'s would be safe thereafter, I think it'd
>be worth it -- even though I'd be one of the unlucky few.

One reason I chose Ann Arbor/Ypsi is that many of my closest friends live 
there.  And I was in a mood where nuking Boston just wouldn't have disturbed 
me.  8-)  If you took it personally, I'm sorry.  But I lived in Ann Arbor for
several happy years, and will do it again as soon as they fix the goddam
climate and economy!

				STella Calvert

		Every man and every woman is a star.

Guest on:	...!decvax!frog!wjr
Life:		Baltimore!AnnArbor!Smyrna!
			!SantaCruz!Berkeley!AnnArbor!Taxachussetts
Future:			...	(!L5!TheBelt!InterstellarSpace)