From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Hey, Tim Starr
Date: 14 Dec 1992 17:57:20 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

Here's a guy that lacks your pollyana view that everything will magically
be all right if only we all adopt libertarianism.

In article <1gbbtcINN5i8@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> aa396@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bill Henley) writes:
>
>I don't think situations like Somalia or Beirut invalidate all
>libertarian ideas, but they do cast a lot of doubt on the
>feasibility of anarcho-capitalism.  The rival "militias" of
>Beirut and "warlords" of Somalia are a little too close for
>comfort to the "competing defense agencies" described by
>writers like Rothbard and David Friedman.  
>
>Granted, these writers assume that their anarcho-capitalist
>societies would have a majority of people who understand and
>accept libertarian non-aggression principles; this is obviously
>not the case anywhere in the world today.  But it still seems
>all too possible that a society of "competing defense agencies"
>could degenerate into something like Somalia, rather than
>achieving the largely peaceful equilibrium that anarcho-
>capitalists envision.
>
>I speak by the way as one who sympathizes with the intentions
>of the anarcho-capitalist writers (Friedman's MACHINERY OF
>FREEDOM is one of my favorite books) and wishes their scheme
>of things COULD work.  But Somalia and Beirut look like
>evidence that it probably would not.

Gee, and he's even read the book you recommended to me to answer essentially
the same question (see the word equilibrium above?)

  In article <1g5phoINN95u@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
  }
  }Whenever I read of libertarian/anarchist ideas, I always ask myself "where
  }are the checks and balances that would prevent feudalism from arising?"
  }
  }We can't simply say "everyone will accept non-coercion".
  }
  }Why wouldn't people who DO accept coercion against others simply create
  }their own aggressive territorial governments?  Without territorial defense
  }by non-aggressive governments, the aggressive governments ought to be able to
  }simply destroy the non-aggressive governments piecemeal.  Whichever government
  }looked like it would win would be most attractive to customers.  Thus, by
  }this positive feedback we'd achieve feudalism again.
  }
  }(This is an argument against free-market choice of governments, as opposed
  }to a single, minarchist government.)
  
  I'm beginning to doubt that you truly desire to know the answers to your
  questions, and merely want to practice your argumentative skills.  Thus, I
  refer you to the two canonical books on the subject: "The Machinery of
  Freedom," by David Friedman, and "The Enterprise of Law," by Bruce Benson.
  Read them to inform your opinions.
  
  Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
  starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu
  
  "True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
  oneself and others." - Voltaire

So let's see.  You lead off with an ad-hominem, and then try to wiggle out by
pointing to a book.  Just like a bible thumper declaring that he has no
time to throw pearles before swine: read the bible.  Sorry, Tim, that's
not the path to true greatness.  Why don't you try enlightening us instead.

Oh yea, and for reference, why not tell me whether you are a minarchist or
anarchist.

Mike Huben

"Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication-- after that it
is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made
to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it can not be
incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation
made to ME, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him."
Thomas Paine in "The Age Of Reason".
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian