From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org]
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 8:20 AM
To: Anton Sherwood
Subject: RE: ism ism

> most minarchists say "police,
> courts, national defense, period."

And I say those plus "no starvation, extinction, or torture;
and provide natural monopolies and public goods; period".
My list is no more subject to slippery-slope arguments
than theirs.

> > 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?
> 
> When he expressly denies that he's advocating a change, yeah.

I never did that. I merely said:

  I mean a policy closer to current federal antitrust policy
  than to anarchy [..]

  each of my proposals would mean less government than now [..]

  I never said policies like these weren't currently in effect [..]

> > 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?
> 
> No [..]
> 
> > > 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.
> 
> Name one such economy, then

There is "more precedent", because the modern American economy
has come far closer to running without protective tariffs
and farm subsidies than it has to running without a national
currency or public natural monopolies.

> > Do you have non-dollar-denominated
> > holdings, or is your money not where your mouth is?
> 
> My what?

Money n. A medium that can be exchanged for goods and 
services and is used as a measure of their values on the 
market, including among its forms a commodity such as gold, 
an officially issued coin or note, or a deposit [..]
--
brian@holtz.org
http://humanknowledge.net