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.