From: Dick.Gray@bull.com
Date: Mon Dec 21 1998 - 11:50:37 MST
I wrote:
>I don't get the point of your response, Samael. Why do you refer to a
>"government" as a PPA? A PPA is a voluntary association that arises due to
>market demand. It has little in common with an organization that claims a
>monopoly on the use of force in a certain territory, and prevents
>competition by force of arms.
Samael replies:
>Because many, many people believe that their government is acting
reasonably
>(at least some of the time). They are happy (ish) with their
>representatives. While it is not a true PPA, it is acting as if it thinks
>it is (governments frequently refer to themselves as servants of the
>people).
I've noticed that irony too.
>However, it's an organisation that's now claimed a monopoly on
>it's area (although I've seen it claimed elsewhere here that PPA's would
>have to have a monopoly on the area they cover) and is 'out of control'.
A-C theorists don't generally make that claim, however - it's an incorrect
(IMO) objection raised by minimalists (and certainly by any statists who
take the trouble to investigate A-C). I think it says more about ingrained
habits of thought than about the feasibility of a market for liberty.
>Strikes me as a likely situation in a libertarian society, and therefore
>something you ought to be able to cope with. So why aren't you?
Because I see no reason to believe that it's a likely situation. Why do
think it is?
I've already given my reasons for considering it unlikely, and outlined
possible defenses against the remote eventuality. How about addressing my
points?
Dick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:50:04 MST