Subject: Re: [LPNY DISCUSS] If you don't do it my way then I'll quit!
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 15:39:52 -0400
To:        <lpny_discuss@yahoogroups.com>
From:     Bob Armstrong <bob@cosy.com>
On Mon, =A02 Jun 2003 14:54:03 -0700, James Lesczynski wrote:
>=A0Bob Armstrong wrote:
>=A0>=A0I believe MAD ( Mutually Assured Destruction ) , which is not=
 in
>=A0>=A0conflict with the libertarian principle ,
>
>=A0How is MAD not in conflict with libertarian principles when=
 done by states,
> but not by individuals? 
> ...
>=A0My argument in favor of the theoretical right to
>=A0personal nukes has always rested on this point: All legitimate=
 government
>=A0power is granted by the consent of the governed. We cannot=
 grant "rights" to
>=A0government that we do not possess individually. I have the=
 right to defend
>=A0myself, so I can grant the government the power to defend me.=
 However, I
>=A0cannot grant government the right to own nuclear weapons if I=
 do not have that
>=A0right. I can't grant what I don't have.

 Well stated . 

 My short answer is that the "right" is the right to self defense=
 .
 The difference is the difference in scale . So long as the=
 geographical
 monopolies of force ( nations ) exist , the need for to "provide=
 for
 the common defense" will also exist . If "they" are aiming nukes=
 at US
 we have the right , and probable necessity , to aim nukes at=
 them .

 Nations act as laissez faire entities no matter what their=
 internal
 structure may be . ( That's why Communism had to either conquer=
 the
 world - or fail . )

 I believe MAD is forcing peace between India and Pakistan now=
 that the
 leaders in Islamabad and New Delhi are both in each other's=
 sights .


 But all this is back to angel counting .

 What about the Mermaid Parade ? 

--=A0
=A0Bob Armstrong -- http://CoSy.com -- 212-285-1864
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A02003/06/02 3:10:18 PM