Re: David Friedman and assassination politics

At 14:13 4/20/97 -0700, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>Jim,
>For the record: I doubt everyone agrees with your "libertarianism is
>intertwined with assassination politics" line... I suggest that one can
>believe in minimal government and other libertarian mainstays without
>seeing a need to kill off those whom we dislike, be they IRS agents or
>surly supermarket clerks. 
>-Declan

Sure, they can BELIEVE in those things without seeing the need, etc, but
then again they can believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus.  Their
position would be overly optimistic, in my opinion.  

I think a more realistic way to phrase it is this:  "If a society is
sufficiently defective so as to contain those flaws (ones which could have
been corrected using AP), that society will also contain flaws which make it
impossible to be called libertarian."


Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com

I can't believe I'm being sucked into an AP argument with Jim Bell but
here goes...

Bell sees AP as a means to a freer society. But libertarianism is all
about how means (Hillary's health care plan) don't justify the ends
(everyone has health care). AP is not about libertarianism, it is about
anarchism.

And to clear up any possible misunderstanding, I don't think that
D.Friedman mentioned Jim Bell or AP, just some of the underlying concepts
-- that have, after all, been discussed here for years before Bell ever
found this list. *sigh*

-Declan


On Sun, 20 Apr 1997, Jim Bell wrote:

> At 14:13 4/20/97 -0700, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> >Jim,
> >For the record: I doubt everyone agrees with your "libertarianism is
> >intertwined with assassination politics" line... I suggest that one can
> >believe in minimal government and other libertarian mainstays without
> >seeing a need to kill off those whom we dislike, be they IRS agents or
> >surly supermarket clerks. 
> >-Declan
> 
> Sure, they can BELIEVE in those things without seeing the need, etc, but
> then again they can believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus.  Their
> position would be overly optimistic, in my opinion.  
> 
> I think a more realistic way to phrase it is this:  "If a society is
> sufficiently defective so as to contain those flaws (ones which could have
> been corrected using AP), that society will also contain flaws which make it
> impossible to be called libertarian."