From: sw@tiac.net (Steve Witham)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 94 22:07:25 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Why to define "government" generously
Message-ID: <199408230504.BAA23905@zork.tiac.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


I'm a libertarian, an anarchist even.  I used to say that government--
properly defined--was what I was against.  James A. Donald seems to think
that way; he closed a recent letter like this (the signature is relevant):

>...It is killing, violence, and extortion that make government
>organizations different from non government organizations.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>We have the right to defend ourselves and our
>property, because of the kind of animals that we              James A. Donald
>are.  True law derives from this right, not from
>the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.                jamesd@netcom.com

This is the "monopoly on force in a geographical area" definition of
government.  It's also pretty much government as we know it.  It's a
fundamentally bad idea and it's what James and I are against.  But I don't
think it's a good definition of "government."

The reason is that what most people mean by "government" is a set of
services, the main ones being what James calls "true law": police, courts,
and defense--protection services for large numbers of people.

Now it's true that most folks lump this in with all the features of
government as we know it--they think that a monopoly on force is
necessary to produce protection services--but it's bad to define
"government" based on that confusion.

The reason is that people like me (and James, judging from his signature)
would still like protection services to be available to people.  When
"government" can plausibly be used to mean those good things, then it's
bad to narrow the term to mean the worst aspects of government as we know
it.  What is the point?  So that we, a minority, can have a convenient term
to name what we're against?  So that our position can be stated in as few
words as possible, or sound as striking and radical as possible?  So that
we can sound like we know what we're talking about by knowing the *real*
definitions of terms?  So we can use the same terms consistently forever?

I think it's bad to define your position in terms of what you're against
because it's backward-looking.  There are at least as many problems in the
future as in the past.  Arguing over or refining definitions is a sign
you've wandered into a timesink.  Make up some temporary terms for what
each side is talking about and get on to content.

 --Steve

- - - - - - - - - -
why did the chicken cross the infobahn?
finger for more info.