Re: A prediction about the Presidential campaign

In article
<3e3681cf-ba93-4be6-aa29-24637ba4cc95@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Will <mclean1382@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 5, 2:27?pm, David Friedman <d...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
In article
<34645046-c5f1-4d5b-8131-210ebee4b...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,

?Will <mclean1...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 4, 11:44?pm, David Friedman .

By mine, it becomes the government at the point when the people in the
neighborhood start accepting its exactions as normal, rather than as
things to be accepted only when the cost of an act of resistance is very
high.

What about the German Government in occupied Europe during WWII? I
think that most locals considered it morally indistinguishable from a
mugger, but still a government.

What I'm describing isn't a moral evaluation but the pattern of a
commitment strategy.

--

The definition breaks down once the government is willing to make the
cost of any reistance very high. Then accepting the exaction becomes
simultaneously normal and accepted only when the cost of resistance is
very high.

That doesn't mean the definition breaks down, just that you can't use
that particular case to test whether or not the organization is a
government.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now
.

Relevant Pages