From: rbeckham@bnr.ca (Rick Beckham)
Subject: Re: Hey, Tim Starr
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Richardson, Tx.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:43:38 GMT

In article <1gihu0INNhi3@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>Here's a guy that lacks your pollyana view that everything will magically
>be all right if only we all adopt libertarianism.
>
*sign*, it's been stated over and over again Mike. libertarians freely admit
 there will be problems. We don't think all of mankinds woes will magically
 disappear. The opposite is true with Dems/Repubs, where a belief that
 social engineering will improve mankind's lot. This has never been
 demonstated. 
 Let's look at it this way; if mankind is basically good we need no govt,
 if mankind is basically bad you don't want a big govt (why? because the
 same percentage of 'badness' will infect the body politic.) If however
 mankind is neither basically good or bad, why would you need a large govt?
 
 You've consistently stated you oppose libertarian philosophy. Does this
 mean you back statism? Where do you draw the line? Are you a total
 collectivist? or are you only socialist when it benefits you? If you
 truly believe the good of the many outweigh the needs of the few then
 would you have no problem with exterminating all people who have
 life threatening incurable contagions? Since the govt is spending your
 childrens money, where will they get the money for govt services for
 those same children once the children become adults? Where do you
 draw the line with taxation? 10%, 20%, 40%? Why not 100% if the govt
 is truly giving our money's worth of services and making life
 'idealistic'?

 Libertarianism is a belief in the individuals' rights, where they cannot
 be trampled by the majority just because the majority suddenly finds
 it convenient. By that end we systematically apply the same logic
 across the board. If it is wrong for a single person to steal, it is
 wrong for a group to steal, even if the group calls itself a govt or
 if the group is a majority.

 So Mike, how far could the govt push you, trampling over your individual
 rights before you decided to resist?


>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.
>
 I've yet to see Mr. Starr wiggle out of anything, but you are the champion
 all time wiggler. You've ignored posts altogether. I suspect Mr. Starr
 mentions books to read with the hope that he could save himself some
 time by not retyping something you could go read for yourself. But you
 appear reluctant to even try to educate yourself. Oh, I forgot. You want
 to be spoonfed by 'big mother'.


>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