Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
> Dan Fabulich wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > The trouble is that "non-initiation of force" leaves out the fun part:
> > the libertarian position emphasizes that you can do *whatever you
> > want*, except for initiation of force. But even that's not very sexy.
> > Nor does it obviously offer up an attack plan. As I've argued, while
> > socialism tells you what to do: "revolt!" libertarianism requires a
> > moral revolution; it requires everyone believing in its rightness and
> > voting that way.
> >
>
> Well, I am not sure I agree it "requires everyone believing in its
> rightness and voting that way".
Neither do I. So long as self defense is acceptable, but initiation of
force is unacceptable, self defense will act as a natural governor on
the initiation of force. Government is thus not needed for police
protection. Note that in many instances of police strikes, crime tends
to DROP, because criminals are more afraid of citizens taking things
into their own hands than the possibility of police cruelty.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:34 MDT