178487

神经网络昆斯林的新闻组分类2006

Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu talk.politics.misc:178487 misc.legal:60733 alt.politics.libertarian:6560
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!transfer.stratus.com!sw.stratus.com!cdt
From: [e-mail] (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (Was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)
Followup-To: alt.politics.libertarian
Date: 15 Apr 1993 20:21:45 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Lines: 23
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <1qkg4p$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Roger Collins) writes:

> Look at the whole picture, not just
> randomly picked libertarian positions.  If government is not allowed to
> use "non-initiated force" to achieve its goals, than no special interest
> can influence the government to use non-initiated force on their behalf.

Either the government has force available to it, or it doesn't.  The
Libertarian position is that the government can use force only when someone
else uses force first -- even when that first force is not directed
against the government, but one of its citizens.  That all being true, 
what safeguards do we have against the government CLAIMING that some
initiation of force on its part is really a response?  (Like the burning
of the Maine, the Tonkin Gulf incident, or the assault on Waco?)

I ask this not to argue, but to understand.

(Followups to alt.politics.libertarian only.)
-- 

[e-mail]   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR [e-mail]        write today for my special Investors' Packet...