From: Chris_Tavares@vos.stratus.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Lawrence Mass.
Date: 25 Dec 1992 00:54:07 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering
NNTP-Posting-Host: qtsm1.sw.stratus.com

In article <MERRITT.92Dec24111037@macro.bu.edu> merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) wrote:  
>In article <1haki3INNf6p@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes: 
>   > Consider what the Police in Lawrence Mass are doing now: 
>   > In a for 4 block area known for drug dealing and prostitution 
>   > they have "sealed off" the area. Residents are given "passes". 
>   > There are checkpoints where the police will ask to your 
>   > license and registartion, they give you a card explaining why 
>   > you were stopped and they record your licence plate number. 

>   If you don't think that creating a four-block police state is not  
>   "government controls," just what the hell do you think it is? 

>   Go back and reconcile your actual philosophy with your apparently 
>   hastily-chosen self-label. 

>The majority of you attack my beliefs as Facsist or as inconsistant, 
>or incompatioable. There are many scholars of alternative Libertarian 
>theory, Robert Nozick, for one that advocate, a Minarchist competeing 
>Protective agencies. The citizen can choose to join whichever one he 
>wishes. Other scholars like Ayn Rand claim that these will just end 
>up at war with each other. 

> If you do erect a wall and control the flow of nonmembers in and out, 
> and these nonmembers agree to follow the minmal requirements while 
> inside(and become subject to punishements, for infractions) I don't 
> see a problem either. If two or more such defacto states are near 
> each other I see free trade as another reason they will not war. 

> As for freedom inside the wall; If there is a true minimalist 
> state, I see the rotation of all official positions, including 
> executive officer as a fair and equitable. Everybody gets a 
> shot, in turn and the actions of such officials is very restricted 
> and the balance tilted towards the free citizen. 
> (for an example of a this setup see Walden II, by B.F. Skinner). 

[large, mostly irrelevant elaboration on Libertarianism ideals snipped] 

Look, my point is much simpler than all this. 

Do you REALLY believe that every resident inside the wall took a vote that 
they wanted to live in an armed enclave?  Do you REALLY believe they chose the 
enforcement officials from among their own number, or even by themselves?  Do 
you REALLY believe that they even initiated the process that created the 
situation?  In short, do you REALLY believe that this four-block police state 
is a true example of libertarian consensus in action? 

> The question of social engineering is this: It is not WHO will 
> be in control(programming minds for you sardonic types) but 
> what is the motivation of said controllers.  

I disagree.  In true Libertarianism, each individual has the authority and 
responsibility to control such aspects of his own life.  Once you give that 
control to another, the motives of that other do not matter, because some one 
of his successors down the line will have different motives. 

> Anarchism strives to make the individual more 
> free. How can they be incompatable?  

With a cordon of police in blue playing Checkpoint Charlie?  Let me count the 
ways... 

> "Now let us see how this principle is manifested in literature, 
[bla, bla, deleted] 

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns