From: wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu (Walter Lee)
Subject: Re: The word "Libertarian" was invented by Spanish Anarchists
Reply-To: wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, MI
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 00:22:54 GMT

In article <BuEztt.5Eu@ais.org>, plucky@ais.org (Chris Adamson) writes:
>	I, for one, am no anarchist.  As I understand it, anarchy is
>a state of lawless mob-rule, in which no rights are guaranteed by the
>society, and "might makes right" instead.
>

This is because journalists use the terms "anarchy" and "Lebanon"
interchangeably.  (I have a bias too... I say "authoritarian" and
"fascist" interchangeably.)  I would grant that anarchists have an overly
optimistic view of human nature.  But "left" anarchist idealism is
no more utopian than the fictional "Galt's Gulch, Colorado".

>	I expect my society to keep my mind, body, and property safe from 
>violent attack, either from criminals or from foreign enemies -- without
>this security, society cannot function and freedom cannot exist.
>
>	If you'd like to meet some genuine anarchists, I suggest you
>give your local representative of Operation Rescue a call.  Their
>tactics -- the forceful denial of an abortion clinic's property rights
>and the attempt to overwhelm local police (they never pick BIG cities
>with large police forces) -- create a localized state of anarchy, in
>which their will can be forced on others.
>

They pick LITTLE cities with sympathetic police forces subject to less
civilian review or recourse to legal challenge or (local) public criticism.

>>They oppose concentrated power in the form of "Big Government" but
>>seem blind to the need to oppose concentrated power in the form
>>of big business.  They spend their energies railing against taxation
>>and some of the Govt's more odious invations of privacy (WoD, etc.)
>>but ignore the tyranny of the workplace.
>
>	The difference is that of public vs. private policy.  If an
>employer strong-arms me and offends my values or denies my liberties,
>I am free to seek out another employer [and the employer is, of course,
>free to fire me and seek out other employees].  When the government
>injures me, I cannot simply boycott it and turn to another US government.
>[and I am not yet so hopeless that I would consider fleeing to another
>country

Since you identify marketplace transactions as "voluntary associations"
I assume you're in one of the 3 or 4 professions in which it's a sellers'
market for labor.  The people who fled Russia, Cuba etc. were, by and large,
people with social mobility.  Also, for most of us here in America, the
leverage to take jobs and shove them is at least as hard to come by as the
mobility to pack up and go to Hong Kong or Galt's Gulch or wherever.

>	The other difference between public and private institutions
>is that the government is legally authorized to use physical force --
>to fine, imprison, or even kill its citizens -- "against a populace that
>is legally disarmed" [Ayn Rand's term]  If I don't go along with an
>employer's tyranny, I can at worst be fired;  but if I don't go along
>with the government's tyranny, by refusing a military draft or by not
>paying my taxes or by using an unregistered encryption scheme (petty,
>wouldn't you say?), I become a criminal and all my rights are forfeit.

yjod yrcy od rmvtu[yrf bos sm imtrhodyrtrf rmvtu[yopm dvjr,r/

>    =========================================================================
>   / Chris L. Adamson    /     Always look on the bright side of life:     /
>  / Michigan State U.   /  Face east in the morning and west in afternoon./
> / Telecomm Production / ----------------------------------------------- / 
>/ M.A. student        /   plucky@irie.ais.org , plucky2@aol.com         /
>========================================================================
>DISCLAIMER:  MSU wishes it could be so erudite and clever...
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,sci.econ