From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org]
Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2002 8:24 PM
To: Anton Sherwood
Subject: RE: ism ism


> > I never said policies like these weren't currently
> > in effect.
> 
> Then they're not "proposals", and a political party would 
> look silly championing them as such.

I called them "positions", and any reference to them as
"proposals" is obviously about proposing them to the LP as
positions.  My point stands that these proposed positions
do not imply we live under some form of anarchy.

> > repeal the laws that exempt unions
> > from *existing* antitrust regulation.
> 
> [quibble]

If there's supposed to be an argument in here somewhere that
my proposed policy would not be a good one, I can't find it.

> > > > Then what makes a state without laws a state?
> 
> With swords?

So do you agree that a state without coercive sovereignty
is not a state?

> David Friedman [said]:
> > (b) The state is that entity toward which most people drop their
> commitment strategy

That doesn't define the state, as it's true of e.g. the Gambino
family.

> If they're already in effect, as three of the five are, how does
> advocating them get publicity for minarchism?

Libertarians (like the LP) discredit minarchism to the extent
that they oppose such sound policies.  Of course, if all
you're interested in is publicity and shock value, that's
an entirely different (and somewhat puerile) goal. :-)

> X might be 
> more libertarian than Y in one respect, and less in 
> another (hence the square chart); the appropriate weighting 
> can be debated endlessly.

It's just silly and disingenuous to say that if I removed
the L/libertarian labels from my chart, most serious observers
of politics wouldn't agree on where to put them.  But no
matter; keep scrambling to rationalize your apparent lack
of interest in distinguishing yourself from those who
advocate the very coercion that you say is anathema. :-)

> > how do you distinguish between
> > minarchists whose proposed regulations pass your 
> > "precedent" test, and those who don't?
> 
> It's easier to distinguish by whether or not they show some 
> concern for such effects in defending their proposals.

So for two minarchists with identical proposals, you decide
whether to agree with those proposals based on the "concern"
shown by the proposers?  Do you also factor in whether they
have bad breath? :-)

> > Each of the three things I said should be regulated or banned
> > are *already* regulated or banned -- in ways that involve
> > more government than the obvious minarchist alternative.
> > That is, there is obviously much more banking regulation,
> > nationalized industry, and antitrust regulation than a
> > minarchist would need to enact these three policies.
> 
> Your point would have been vastly clearer if you'd said so in 
> the first place.  When you simply call for regulation of 
> something that's already regulated, it's not immediately 
> obvious that you mean something other than current policy

So when a self-identified libertarian opposes a particular
crypto-anarchist proposal, you assume he fully endorses
whatever baroque statist machinery that might be America's
standing law on the issue?

> What obvious alternatives have you in mind?

Given the way you tend to (not) answer my questions, I think 
I'll just point you to the Cato Institute rather than answer 
this one of yours.

> > > My claim was not that an accusation of selfish
> > > partiality would bear close examination, but that one
> > > can count on its being made and believed by many
> >
> > My claim is that "my drugs and my taxes" issues are
> > obviously and significantly *more* susceptible to charges
> > of self-interest.  Dare you assert the direct negation of
> > this statement?
> 
> Dare you assert the direct negation of mine?

My claim directly supports the disputed thesis that
libertarians spend too much of their energy making 
themselves look selfish: "my drugs and my taxes". Your 
vague claim -- how many is "many"? -- does not directly 
rebut that thesis.

> > Rent control doesn't help brown people, it just helps the
> > (usually white) people who have rent-controlled leases.
> 
> You know that and I know that, but does the average voter know it?

Sigh. You've again forgotten the issue here: between
rent control and "my drugs and my taxes", which policy is
easier to convince the average voter that my position on it
isn't primarily self-interested?

> > Libertarians *oppose* laws restricting who one can vote for.
> 
> Unless, of course, the restriction advances broader liberty 
> on balance.

Is that supposed to be an argument that my
opposition to term limits looks just as self-interested as
your opposition to drug laws and taxes?

> > You simply dispute my conclusion while not responding to my
> > argument: "especially in the economically fundamental
> > areas of monetary policy, natural monopoly infrastructure,
> > externality regulation, and antitrust regulation."
> 
> Because that's irrelevant to the point.  If "minarchist" means
> "intervening in only those areas Brian thinks appropriate"

I sent you an excerpt from my book detailing the six
purposes of the state that I identify, and you try to
pretend I have no principles?

> There is no more precedent for a multi-trillion
> economy without protective tariffs and farm subsidies than 
> for one without those regulations you consider fundamental.

No mainstream historian of economics would agree with this
assertion.

> I'm less confident of a permanent consensus
> on *why* to avoid inflation.

I'm confident enough. Do you have non-dollar-denominated 
holdings, or is your money not where your mouth is?

> > Then that defense pact becomes the dominant mob, and starts
> > behaving as such.
> 
> So you believe a defense pact inevitably becomes an offense pact.

History has shown that for-profit protection networks almost
inevitably become protection rackets.

> Is that true of NATO?

NATO is non-profit.
--
brian@holtz.org
http://humanknowledge.net