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