Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!cca!ima!inmet!nrh From: nrh@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: PISSED OFF Message-ID: <1899@inmet.UUCP> Date: Thu, 17-Jan-85 07:39:40 EST Article-I.D.: inmet.1899 Posted: Thu Jan 17 07:39:40 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 20-Jan-85 00:32:51 EST Lines: 95 Nf-ID: #R:loral:-74200:inmet:3900159:000:4057 Nf-From: inmet!nrh Jan 16 12:12:00 1985 >***** inmet:net.flame / amdcad!phil / 11:10 pm Jan 15, 1985 >> Exactly. Government, as currently implemented, is just a >> protection racket. This is the eventual fate of any such >> entity which is not sufficiently controlled. This is why >> governments should be totally hamstrung to begin with! > >Oh yes, there are so many things that our governments should >obviously not be doing, like building highways, Once upon a time there were private roads. One net-user advanced the notion that the private roads were so expensive that farmers appealed to the State to nationalize the road system. You have no idea how happy I am to subsidize farmers and truckers by money extracted from me by force. The railroads were built by private industry cooperating with (not directed by) government. Odd that government should be in the construction business, don't you think? >providing for >public safety (police and fire), In some areas, the fire departments are private companies. In one city (sorry, can't remember the name), the police department is a private firm hired by the government. While it is certainly arguable that government must provide police protection, there's no particular reason to think that it must provide fire departments (one can still see, on old buildings in Philadelphia, the plates that identified which private company covered the building) and no reason to think that it must provide either of these services by running them with government employees. >passing zoning regulations >so slaughterhouses don't end up next to schools, Ever since the 18th century nuisance laws were repealed, it has been necessary to engage in a number of dodges in order to keep people who can no longer be sued for causing nuisances from being, well, nuisances. Happily for the minions of the State, these dodges (Zoning laws, environmental protection setups) are more amenable to corrupt use than were the nuisance laws. Zoning, while it may keep slaughterhouses from being next to schools (public schools, anyhow) also allows the rich to dictate that no small houses may be built in areas of Beverly Hills (wouldn't want those poor people creeping in). Don't even ask me about building code regulations. >running >parks and recreation departments, Yes, I think it's perfectly okay to tell taxpayers that they will be put in jail if they do not pay for parks and recreation departments. After all, they are life and death issues, and it's morally justified to steal from citizens to construct bridle paths. >regulating utilities >(would you like PG&E to do what it wants?), Oh my! If you don't want PG&E to do what it wants, then all you need do is a few simple things. 1. Tell PG&E that it may charge whatever it wants (phase this in over, say, 20 years). 2. Tell EVERYBODY (PG&E's competitors) that they may charge whatever they want. Somehow make it clear (perhaps by having the city post bond) that the city will not change this policy lightly. 3. Give everybody access to the city conduit plant, so that they may install competing gas/power lines. 4. Make it clear that PG&E and all the others will be liable for any damages they cause. Your biggest problem is that nobody will believe you -- why should utility companies (so used to thinking of themselves as creatures of the state) believe that they'll be able to operate freely? If you want some index of how successful this could be, propose it in the hearing of a PG&E type, and listen to the squeals. Protected (regulated) monopolies in general do not LIKE the notion of competition. >running our >justice system, >and worst of all: providing for national defense! > >It's obvious, kick the pigs out of office. Let's go back >to say knights, fiefdoms, and serfs. Think I'll be a knight. Oddly, the State ran the justice system and provided for national defense back in the days of fiefdoms, too, so going back to the days of knighthood wouldn't change this aspect of things much. (The weaponry would be safer to leave around children).