From: James Rogers (jamesr@best.com)
Date: Wed Jan 07 1998 - 22:11:32 MST
At 11:32 PM 1/7/98 -0500, Robin Helweg-Larsen wrote:
>Anton Sherwood wrote:
>
>> AMG:
>> > Is it possible that the force that government occasionally uses
>>
>> Occasionally? What is government, if not the threat of force?
>
>That could be applied to all social interaction. If you attack me, you do so
>under the threat that I may defend myself; even if you only insult me, you
do so
>under the threat that I may react violently. Government is no worse
inherently
>than people. I don't disagree with your view of government, but it is a very
>cynical view, and loses validity if you don't apply as rigorous a cynicism to
>your own dealings with others.
This is not valid. You posit that if I attack you, I do so under the
"threat" that you will defend yourself. If I decided that you defending
yourself was a significant threat to my attack, then the proper term would
be "deterrent" (assuming basically rational players). A deterrent is
simply a "defensive threat" that is of significance to the attacker.
Obviously when applied to government, individuals do not possess a
deterrent capability since, at best, they represent a non-significant
defensive threat to the government.
When the government is involved, individuals may represent a "threat", but
never a "deterrent". In a social interaction, there is *always* someone
who can kick the aggressor's ass.
-James Rogers
jamesr@best.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:48:24 MST