RE: [wta-talk] CEP?

Amara Graps wrote:

> A long time ago a good friend gently pointed out the following,
> which I have subscribed to, ever since:
>
> "If your operating base is widely distributed, then what target does
> an enemy have? Centralized governments provide an easy target for
> invasion by other forces. The answer to this is the same as that to
> having your interests served better: Live Locally and Distributed."
>
> To be fair, since Friedman doesn't subscribe to the idea that
> governments are a necessary entity, he probably didn't have a strong
> enough motivation to look for solutions for that. I expect that
> other libertarian literature has volumes of material about that (I
> don't know references, since I think similarly to Friedman).

### Reading "Machinery of Freedom" I had the impression that Friedman did
try to come up with a non-statist way of providing protection against
large-scale organized violence, and he was somewhat frustrated by a lack of
plausible ideas. After all, if you don't have any, many of the
anarcho-capitalist dreams would remain exactly that, dreams.

I tend to agree with Friedman almost everywhere else (especially the idea of
deducing rules of social interaction and morality backwards, from the
desired outcomes, rather than the other way round) but since I also can't
come up with a non-statist replacement for a territorial army, I would bite
the bullet and say the state indeed is needed for this particular function,
at least until we find a replacement.

A centralized government might be a prime target but on the other hand,
hundreds of small entities can be easily subjugated by one larger one, given
time, as amply shown in the progression from nomadic bands to tribes,
chiefdoms, and states. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.

-------
>
> David Friedman, when he talks about deducing libertarian conclusions:
>
> begin{quote}
> Many libertarians appear to believe that libertarianism can be stated
> as a simple and convincing moral principle from which everything else
> follows. Popular candidates are 'It is always wrong to initiate
> coercion' and 'Everyone has the absolute right to control his own
> property, provided that he does not use it to violate the
> corresponding rights of others.' If they are right, then the obvious
> way to defend libertarian proposals is by showing that they follow
> from the initial principle. One might even argue that to defend
> libertarian proposals on the ground that they have desirable
> consequences, as I have done throughout this book, is not only a waste
> of time, but a dangerous waste of time, since it suggests that one
> must abandon the libertarian position if it turns out that some
> coercive alternative works better.
>
> One problem with deducing libertarian conclusions from simple
> libertarian principles is that simple statements of libertarian
> principles are not all that compelling. Lots of people are in favor of
> initiating coercion, or at least doing things that libertarians regard
> as initiating coercion. Despite occasional claims to the contrary,
> libertarians have not yet produced any proof that our moral position
> is correct.
>
> A second problem is that simple statements of libertarian principle
> taken literally can be used to prove conclusions that nobody,
> libertarian or otherwise, is willing to accept. If the principle is
> softened enough to avoid such conclusions, its implications become far
> less clear. It is only by being careful to restrict the application of
> our principle to easy cases that we can make them seem at the same
> time simple and true.
> end{quote}
>
> Friedman, D. _The Machinergy of Freedom: Guide to a Radical
> Capitalism_, Open Court publ., 1989, p. 167.
>

### I love this way of thinking.

Rafal
Received on Fri Oct 18 06:35:56 2002