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Ever since the 18th century nuisance laws were repealed, it has been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).