From: mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Libertarian Party (was Re: Ross Perot)
Date: 15 Apr 92 01:13:18 GMT
Reply-To: mss2@midway.uchicago.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Apr14.222749.9801@panix.com> dos@panix.com (Dave O'Shea) writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.171738.11424@midway.uchicago.edu> mss2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>>life and those of their families and friends.  It's the Libertarian
>>platform's apparent attitude that there isn't anything that our police
>>forces and military defense is protecting us _from_, despite the fates
>>of so many countries in this bloodstained century, that makes it
>>difficult for me to take the party seriously.
>>
>>Mike
>Frankly, if you look at most of the mass murders of recent history -
>The Holocaust, Stalin's purges, Tianenmem Square, and untold others -
>All of these were perpetrated *by* the government that was supposedly
>the protector of these people. Given the alternatives of defending
>myself against the occasional mugger, or an entire government, I'll
>take the mugger - at least *he* doesn't have the power to disarm me
>before he seizes my property.

But it's the existence of the US government, with all its power
to tax and draft armies and the like, which has prevented the
American people from falling under the control of people like
Hitler and Stalin.

Besides, this government-nongovernment distinction is fallacious.
It's likely that my hypothetical "rogue security service alliance"
would eventually deprive its clients of the power to change services,
make regulations which would affect its clients' private behavior
(it would sure as _hell_ disarm them, and would have organized units
with tactical training; to beat them, you'd have to join a private
army with similar training, and such organizations cannot permit
much personal freedom under battle conditions).  It might even start
calling its fees "taxes", if that didn't become too much of a dirty
word.  (Cf. the terms "war" and "armed conflict".  We don't fight
"wars" anymore, officially.  The distinction, other than in certain
legal contexts, is difficult to discern.)

Exactly the same thing happened after the fall of the Roman Empire.
Basically, a tough would get a gang of other toughs together, set up a
fortress, and "defend" everything within a day's ride around.  Many
people voluntarily signed away their (and their children's) freedom in
exchange for such protection, because paying one band of thugs was
better than being shaken down by every gang that rode through.  Or
maybe sometimes it wasn't voluntary-- it's amazing what people will
agree to at spear point.  Doubtless sometimes people rose up and threw
out the toughs-- but then they either had to face more gangs riding
in, or a body of neighborhood men would have to stay armed to defend
it-- and they would begin to expect perks for this, and eventually end
up as just another gang.

Sometimes the toughs would say, "this bridge is ours-- to cross it,
you pay us a certain amount of wheat".  This wasn't "law" (lex),
because that referred only to Roman legislation.  Instead it was the
"custom" (consuetudines, according to my rusty memory).  In other
words, "We have a custom here where you pay me and I don't run you
through with my spear."  Eventually it became "customary" to grind
one's wheat at a mill owned by the lord, at a profit to the lord, and
still later other "customs" rose up, new structures came into
existence for the lord's vassals to administer land in his name (oaths
of fealty, itinerant kingship, etc.) and this eventually evolved into
the feudal system; a system very different from the Roman Empire, but
no less a government for that.

I do not see what a government which is funded by contributions could
do to prevent such a scenario from taking place.  If the gangs or
security services or "revolutionary armies" _are_ willing to tax/steal,
and the government is not, then the former will quickly have more
resources than the latter, and will in effect become the government.

If not, why not?
-- 
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS	"Never let your sense of morality prevent
mss2@midway.uchicago.edu	 you from doing what's right!"
mike.schiffer@um.cc.umich.edu	 --Mayor Salvor Hardin of Terminus
mss2@usite-next.uchicago.edu     Isaac Asimov, _Foundation_
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:973 soc.culture.usa:2985