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!janw From: janw@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Re: Re: Newsflash! [JoSH on Socialis Message-ID: <28200221@inmet.UUCP> Date: Thu, 24-Oct-85 23:12:00 EST Article-I.D.: inmet.28200221 Posted: Thu Oct 24 23:12:00 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 31-Oct-85 06:10:54 EST References: <876@water.UUCP> Lines: 123 Nf-ID: #R:water:-87600:inmet:28200221:000:5955 Nf-From: inmet!janw Oct 24 23:12:00 1985 [ the usual odd-even quoting conventions apply ] [Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh] > > > 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. > > Right question, wrong answer. This test of (temporary) coexistence > > *is* all-important for a new social order proposal. > > [And the libertarian proposals pass it]: ... > > On the other hand, I see nothing in libertarian proposals > > that cannot be introduced incrementally, and tried, and tested > > without prejudging the next step. > > [Explanation why I think so] >[Mike again] > Anything can be introduced incrementally, without prejudging the next > step. For example, elimination of civil rights. Let's start by removing > them from those who espouse libertarianism. > [A list of other allegedly non-beneficial incremental changes]. Apparently you missed the logical structure of my argument . (I am not saying it is your fault, perhaps I didn't make it clear). Let me try again. 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. 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. Let us take your example above, depriving libertarians of civil rights. Since this is not incremental enough for my taste, let us assume they are deprived of one right only, say, posting to the net. Is it a Good Thing ? Not in my opinion. Does it involve coexistence of new and old social order ? Obviously: full rights for most people and most rights for some people coexist with denial of some rights to some people. Is this less dangerous than going the whole hog at once ? You bet. In the hypothetical situation, the missing right would be quickly restored through the activities of liberta- rians off the net and of fair-minded non-libertarians off and on the net. Not all programs and theories of social change possess this pro- perty: that they can be phased in, introduced without first breaking up the old social order. E.g., Bernstein's revisionist Marxism did, while Lenin's brand didn't. Trotsky went further in this direction than Bukharin, as he thought it a necessary precondition to eliminate all alternatives *globally* (world revolution). Owen's socialism passed the test, Babeuf's didn't. Usually, bottom-up, grass roots programs are gradualist, top-down, centralist ones aren't. Now, can you imagine a *centralist* libertarianism ? You need this guarantee of gradualism and coexistence *especially* for those changes that may not be, in your opinion, beneficial. Let us apply the test of coexistence directly to the law and ord- er problems in the context of which you made your incorrect but thought-provoking statement. I repeat the quote: > > > 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. Not only they can, but they do coexist. Some people hire body- guards or protection agencies. Other people create neighborhood patrols. Still other people rely on their firearms or judo skills. Others on mechanical gadgets. All these are libertarian systems of keeping people from breaking the doors. How good they are, is beside the point. If indeed the "current one" (and I presume you are not speaking of these other current ones) depend- ed on being the only one *it would not exist right now*. > Even incremental changes rock the current social order, and there > are classes that will benefit and suffer for those changes. The second part of this sentence is irrelevant to the argument. As for rocking the boat, sure, but incremental changes rock it slightly, so it does not capsize. > 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 ? > 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. 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. Jan Wasileswsky