Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!yale!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Financing the government of a free s
Message-ID: <7800344@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 30-Jun-85 02:16:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.7800344
Posted: Sun Jun 30 02:16:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 5-Jul-85 05:30:19 EDT
References: <3841@alice.UUCP>
Lines: 27
Nf-ID: #R:alice:-384100:inmet:7800344:000:1330
Nf-From: inmet!nrh    Jun 30 02:16:00 1985


>/**** inmet:net.politics / alice!ark / 11:08 am  Jun 23, 1985 ****/
>> Just because the government offers contract enforcement services doesn't
>> mean that nobody else will.  Indeed, the government is so bad at this that
>> arbitration groups are becoming increasingly popular.
>
>That's certainly true.  The Mafia, for example, has very effective ways
>of enforcing their contracts.
>
>But since I believe that the government should have a legal monopoly
>on the use of force against people, it should not be legal for anyone
>but the government to enforce contracts.
>/* ---------- */

Which government?  The Staties?  The City?  The Feds? The County?  The CIA?
The NSA?

We live, RIGHT NOW in a situation in which various agencies claim the
power to use force against us.  That some of these are "legal", such as
the FBI and the state Troopers, means that their actions are subject to
judicial review.  My point was that government is not good at enforcing
contracts right now, but references to the Mafia merely distort the
situation, as they are clearly aggressors.  What libertarians propose
tends to be more competing above-ground police forces which make
agreements among themselves, not unilateral aggression by underground
organizations dedicated (as I understand the Mafia, anyhow) to the
advancement of its members.