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