Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!MC.LCS.MIT.EDU!KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU From: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU.UUCP Newsgroups: mod.politics Subject: Defense Message-ID: <12264922592.22.MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU> Date: Mon, 22-Dec-86 18:12:01 EST Article-I.D.: RED.12264922592.22.MCGREW Posted: Mon Dec 22 18:12:01 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 22-Dec-86 20:39:40 EST Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 52 Approved: poli-sci@red.rutgers.edu From: WRITIMM%YALEVMX.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU Subject: Defense > Do you really think that Qadaffi and > Khomenei are more trustworthy than ANY INDIVIDUAL in the US? I can think of several people whom I trust less than Khomenei or Gadhafi. What makes Americans so damn trustworthy, anyway? What I mean was, do you believe that for every individual American, Qadaffi is more trustworthy than that individual? Since you seem to think that Qadaffi should be allowed to have nuclear weapons but that no individual American should, I guess you do. My point is that it is easy to find flaws in libertarian thought. These always take the form "If you give a person freedom X, he might abuse that freedom". This is true. But it is debating in a vacuum. We are comparing a libertarian system to the present system, not to some hypothetical ideal world in which everyone is peaceful and sits around in white robes doing whatever people do to pass the time in utopia. In particular, according to currently accepted international norms, it is ok for any national government to have nuclear weapons, even if that government is a single individual. It is not, however, ok for individuals who are not kings or emperors to have nuclear weapons. Don't get me wrong. I don't like nuclear weapons. I wish they didn't exist. But they do. As long as anyone has them, I think everyone should be allowed to have them. I would support an international agreement that nobody is to have them, if it applied to everyone everywhere, if it had no conditions attached, and if we had some way to verify compliance. But as long as one person or government anywhere has one, I think you or I should be allowed to have one too. > Any country whose inhabitants won't defend it except when > coerced is not worthy of being defended. Strange. If you don't need to defend your country (you are not at war), a strong case can be made for not having a draft. You seem to be advocating a mandatory draft, ... If you had read my messages you would know that I totally oppose a draft even during wartime. ... How is a nuclear war, fought with 19,000 strategic and possibly 31,000 tactical nuclear weapons "painless". It might be short, but its effects would certainly last a long time. Another straw man. I do not advocate nuclear war. Or any war, unless we are actually invaded. ...Keith -------