Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/23/84; site ucbcad.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!faustus From: faustus@ucbcad.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Re: Re: Libertarianism Message-ID: <2831@ucbcad.UUCP> Date: Fri, 30-Nov-84 03:52:53 EST Article-I.D.: ucbcad.2831 Posted: Fri Nov 30 03:52:53 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 2-Dec-84 05:51:37 EST References: <1838@inmet.UUCP> Organization: UC Berkeley CAD Group, Berkeley, CA Lines: 72 > >Not necessarily. Government is not formed because some people think that > >it should collect on people's debt to society. Its function is purely > >pragmatic -- society could not exist without government. > > Just as women's bodies could not exist without corsets.... No, it isn't like that. > >Society without government is a probably better than no society at all > >(no interaction between people). But when government is working > >properly, it makes it much easier for individuals to interact in > >productive ways. > > A perpetual motion machine, when it is working well, provides all the > power you need. Does this mean that it is worthwhile to spend time > building a perpetual motion machine? There is a difference -- there are good reasons why perpetual motion machines can't work well. I suppose you have given lots of reasons why (in your opinion) government can't work well, but don't take it for granted that everybody agrees with you. > This notion that any dynamic whatsoever can be built into a government > (David Friedman's phrase) is far sillier than anything libertarians have > come up with. In particular, when you create a government, the people > you've put in charge of it do not magically become exempt from greed, > envy, and the urge to power. The organization of the government (the > bureaucracy) does not magicly become sprightly, well-integrated, and > cooperative. These things obey the laws of human nature just as all > other such creations do. You cannot build a perpetual motion machine > because of the laws of physics. The "laws of human nature" have nothing to do with the laws of physics. Just because people are liable to abuse power doesn't mean that nobody should have it. > What I am trying to suggest here is that it may not be possible to > build a government that is, or can remain, "good", and that the > notion that one need only take an existing government and "fix" it > to get a good government is like the notion that one can take > a bicycle generator and "fix" it so that it becomes a perpetual > motion machine. It isn't like that. Maybe it isn't possible to get a government that works perfectly, but in my opinion it is very easy to get a governent that works better than none at all. > I've been waiting for that list of monopolies! You'll be waiting for a long time... I'm not an economic historian, and there is disagreement about this among economists anyway. I never wanted to make this point crucial to my whole argument. If you want to argue this you should do it in net.economics. > >but such things as public education and the > >judicial system are clearly cases of productive government regulation. > > There's no argument about it! Government can certainly come up > with public goods. The problem is that the government must > create public "bads" (taxation, limited liability for itself, denial > of certain liberties) to create them. Are the goods worth the cost? Yes. I think this entire discussion is getting much too abstract and full of "I'm right" vs "No you aren't". Maybe we could pick some concrete topics of interest to libertarians and discuss them in more detail... (And if you think any books are worth quoting, please feel free to do so, but don't assume that people have the time to read them all themselves.) Wayne