From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 09:39:22 -0800 (PST)
To: SUCRUM22_at_INDY-ADP@smtp-gw.cv62.navy.mil
Subject: Re: a retort + a comment + a question = [RANT]
In-Reply-To: <9610108476.AA847691156@smtp-gw.cv62.navy.mil>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.961110085723.7792B-100000@crl4.crl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

On Sun, 10 Nov 1996 SUCRUM22_at_INDY-ADP@smtp-gw.cv62.navy.mil wrote:

> ...the freedoms the Cpunks diligently try to preserve (or seem
> to want to create...) are protected _by_ the military. 

Wrong on two counts:

1) Strictly speaking, the C'punks list is primarily concerned 
   with privacy.  Of course, most of us seem to have strong
   interest in freedom, but the original intent of the list 
   founders was the "self-help" preservation of privacy through
   technological means. 

2) Putting aside that nit-pick, we are still left with two  
   implicit and unsupported assumptions:

   a) military=government.  
   b) military/government doesn't also threaten freedoms.

As to a), market anarchists (aka, anarcho-capitalists) believe
that militaries would be better provided by private business.
The concept is usually called "private defense agencies."  The
conservative preference is for para-military "militias."  I have
no intention of getting into a debate over these concepts.  I
mention it only for the purpose of pointing out that alternative
do exist and the fact that governments--through force of the
threat of force--maintain their monopoly hold on the instruments
of war does not mean we are better off for that fact.

With regard to b), governments--primarily through the use of 
their militaries--have killed, by some counts 170,000,000, men,
women and children in this century alone.  Hardly the guardians
of freedom, in my opinion.

> who was it that said:  "law, without force, is impotent"  -?  

He says that as if it's a bad thing.

> keep in mind that even "bad" laws have to be enforced. 

Actually, this is not true either.  In the US at least, if a law
is unconstitutional, it is void ab initio.  The military ananlogy
is found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  A subordinate
is not required to follow an order that violates the UCMJ.  The
international version was enunciated at the Nurenburg trials. "I
was only following orders" is not esculpatory.

> ...anarchy implies ruthlessness

To some people, yes.  Literally--and that's how most libertarians
and anarchists use it--it means no rulers.  In my opinion, 
observation and experience and experience rulers, government and
military imply ruthlessness far more directly.


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~