From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: 2 Oct 92 13:31:00 GMT
	<1992Sep29.223953.26882@genie.slhs.udel.edu>
	<1992Sep30.091620.6641@hellgate.utah.edu>
	<9389@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>
	<1992Oct1.094807.8167@hellgate.utah.edu>
Followup-To: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
In-reply-to: galt%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu's message of 1 Oct 92 15:48:07 GMT

galt%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt) writes:
|>GA:kicking in your door to search your house is not.  Oh, yeah, I forgot,
|>GA:you had a choice when you signed your employer's contract--you could
|>GA:sign it and give up rights, or you could starve.  
|>
|>Or you could choose to sign on with another company.

|Unless all companies used the same standard contract.  Remember, there
|would be no anti-trust laws to prevent companies from joining together
|to preserve their common interest.  Try to get a credit card now...
|every company uses the same contract basically.  If everyone didn't
|like it, then they would eventually change, but most people have the
|attitude "I have nothing to hide, so I might as well sign it".  Most
|people would sign it even if they didn't like it, since they need a
|job to stay alive. 

Interesting point.

|I'm not saying that governments are good, just that a "Libertarian"
|society would be more repressive for most people than what we have now.

I doubt it because "repressive" in the way you mean it (I gather) has
been defined differently by the Lib's.

My opinion is that it would lead us to where we are now eventually,
but that's a gut feeling involving human nature and somethign I can't
prove.  I might be able to argue it, but I'd have to really be in the
mood--not today.  

|Libertarians talk about getting rid of government, but they plan on
|keeping the cops, the soldiers, and the courts.  To me, these are the
|only things that need to go.  Without cops, soldiers, and courts, the
|government is no longer coercive. 

In the end, all things must be interpreted, including the non-coercion
principle (or else all LIBs would agree).

|If the employees of these "private security companies" carry guns, they
|are cops, and they are coercive.  If courts can still enforce contracts 
|and punish people who break contracts, then they are coercive.

There's an interesting axiomatic flaw here.  If I sign a contract but
refuse to pay, I must be coerced into paying.  OF course, I maintain
that contracts are meaningless.  My consent is internal and pieces of
paper are irrelevant to that consent.  I can say I that I consent but
not.  

The argument is that we assume that contracts are consent, but that
assumes I've signed a contract to that affect, which assumes I signed
a contract to that affect, which...*

I never signed a contract saying that contracts are valid.

This is a silly argument, but I think it may highlight the problem
with the non-coercion principle vs the "social contract".

Comments?

|The main difference would be that this new private government would be
|owned by rich people and businesses, and the poor would have no say at all. 

Then they should become rich.
--
Peace.
          "Until the lions have their historians,
           tales of the hunted will always glorify the hunter."
                        - African proverb
                                   -\--/-
    Don't just adopt opinions     |  \/  |       Some of you are homeboys
          develop them.           |  /\  | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
                                   -/--\-