Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!cca!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Re: (micromotives & macrobehavior)
Message-ID: <28200073@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 6-Sep-85 14:22:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.28200073
Posted: Fri Sep  6 14:22:00 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 15-Sep-85 04:49:37 EDT
References: <3476@topaz.UUCP>
Lines: 31
Nf-ID: #R:topaz:-347600:inmet:28200073:000:1426
Nf-From: inmet!janw    Sep  6 14:22:00 1985


> >[Mike Huybenz]
> >Effective?  Only in a few of the large range of social needs.  How would
> >the market provide defense against a competing political power, for example?

> [JoSH]
> Why do you assume it wouldn't?  Military struggles are generally decided
> on the relative size and economic productivity of the countries involved,
> not on the ideologies thereof. 

 To make that stick, you'd have to demonstrate that political
structure is irrelevant to military might.
  Unfortunately, tighter political systems tend to outfight
the looser ones, given equal economic and demographic assets.
E.g., nazi Germany proved to be more than a match for the rest of
Western Europe; North Korea easily beat the richer and more popu-
lous South Korea (before the UN troops arrived).  The assumed
rough military parity between the Western and the Soviet alli-
ances - in spite of enormous economic disparity  -  should, if
true, clinch the case, since here you have a large sample all
summed up for you. 

 I am speaking as someone sympathetic to Libertarian goals, but
the defense problem does trouble me. 
 JoSH and Nat have pointed out many  *existing*  private systems
that might take over government's social functions: charities,
insurance, etc. For defense, there is very little to show. In
the absence of empirical data, at least theoretical foundation
should be stronger than a simple "why not ?".

        Jan Wasilewsky