At 06:33 PM 7/3/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote:

My article made my points, so I won't rewrite it here. You are of course not required to agree. You are free to live in crowded cites--near "soft targets." You are welcome to lobby for world peace and for economic changes to lessen terrorism.

(I think this is mostly hopeless. No matter how "nice" conditions get, for game-theoretic reasons there will be some groups seeking changes.)

I am not sure who is right in this debate. I know that the "why can't we all just get along?" crowd is asking a stupid question. There are lots of reasons people can't get along and there have been enough "top-down" imposed social changes this century to suggest that "changing society" won't preserve the peace. On the other hand, I'm not sure that Tim's pessimism is warranted. This argument that cities will become completely unlivable and the only way to survive is to move out into less populated areas has been going on in the libertarian, survivalist, and right-wing-nut communities since the 1960s. The magazines Vonulife and Libertarian Connection used to talk a lot about the relative merits of Nomadism or Troglodytism, suitcase nukes, and such. Those who took the advice and moved into caves in 1969 have sure had an uncomfortable 30 years. Mel Tappan (author of Survival Guns) may have died from a heart attack which he could have survived had he not moved into the boonies. I note as well that Tim is not all that far away from civilization and its discontents. North Dakota or Labrador would be better choices if separation were really desired. Those of us in the Techno-Libertarian Panglossian Community argue that it is at least possible that the spread of markets will serve to bend the world's population to bourgeois values before nanotech gives everyone the power to destroy the world. Note that markets (like networks) can expand faster than outside observers can believe once a critical mass of participants is achieved. We see that happening all around the world in the case of both markets and networks. Even hard cases like Africa and the Middle East will find themselves swept up in a short time (by historical standards). It's hard to get people who are making lots of dough to strap dynamite to their bodies and go blow up a bus. Then Larry said:

...

because it is a fact of life, is erroneous in my view. it is a common libertarian argument that goes, "criminality is everywhere, so why try to stop it?" a rather juvenile ideology.

In all my years of reading and listening to libertarian agitprop, I've never heard this argument. And back to Tim:

(And my point about moving out of cities referred to what *I* am doing; others are of course free to mingle in crowded markets, hoping that the bombs won't come that day. Others are free to send their children to day care centers located in likely targets for ZOG's enemies to bomb, and so on.)

Kids sent to day care centers operated by the federal government or schools operated by local governments are going to be in a bad way in any case whether or not they are blown up or shot (as in Stockton and Scotland). I *love* the Volvo ads which feature mom driving her kids to school in a Volvo with all of its safety features and then turing the kids over to the government for indoctrination. Much better she should drive them to private schools in a Chevy Corvair. They'll live longer (certainly in the spiritual sense of "live"). DCF