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