Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site teddy.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!talcott!panda!teddy!lkk
From: lkk@teddy.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Government and stability
Message-ID: <1542@teddy.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 30-Oct-85 13:53:51 EST
Article-I.D.: teddy.1542
Posted: Wed Oct 30 13:53:51 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 3-Nov-85 07:38:22 EST
References: <1473@teddy.UUCP> <28200189@inmet.UUCP> <1496@teddy.UUCP> <131@ucbjade.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: lkk@teddy.UUCP (Larry K. Kolodney)
Organization: GenRad, Inc., Concord, Mass.
Lines: 80

In article <131@ucbjade.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@ucbopal.UUCP (Mike (I'll be mellow when I'm dead) Meyer) writes:
>In article <1496@teddy.UUCP> lkk@teddy.UUCP (Larry K. Kolodney) writes:
>
>So, let's look at #1. Governments are neither necessary nor sufficient for
>stability. Consider the Louisiana Territory before the last wave of
>immigrants (whites) showed up. A very stable society, with little or no
>government above the intertribal level. Now, consider the same Territory
>after the US government has moved in to stabilize things. The buffalo die
>off, the people living on the land are thrown off, trees start growing in
>the Great Plains, etc. Most decidedly *not* stable. [Other examples of both
>cases provided for the asking.]

Right.  When only Aborigines lived on the great plains, there was no
need for a global government, becuase there was no global society.
When the white men came and destroyed everything, this may have been
bad for the Indian, but, in the long run, it was good for the white
man, and led to the thriving economy that exists there now.


>
>Now, consider #2. Stability is *not* necessary for production. Just consider
>what production in the US did during the *very* unstable period from 1939 to
>1945.
>

What do you mean there was no stability?  Sure things were relatively
unstable, due to the war, but it was quite stable compared to a no
government situation.  The rule of law still applied, the government
took great steps to insure that things remained stable during the war
(preventing strikes, national economic planning, etc.).



>In fact, production *implies* change. You've either got more of what you're
>producing, or (if this was a replacement), a *different* one (or more) of
>what you're producing.
>

You're confusing types of change.  Government needn't prevent change
to insure a stable FRAMEWORK.  The government is like the operating
system of a computer.  Like Unix, most (all) are full of bugs, but
wouldn't it be horrible there were NO operating systme, and each user
simply had direct access to the computer hardware, with no tools,
no protocol, no restrictions and no documentation?  Unix doesn't prevent
change, but it insures a stable framework for implementing it.



>Ok, Larry, now tell us what you meant by "stability," and I'll do this again
>:-).

Stability means I can make an investment in a house (or business), for
instance, and be relatively sure it won't be bulldozed over the next
day by my neighbor.  Stability means I can get a job, and not be fired
from it arbitrarily (and if I do, that I won't starve).  Stability
means I will be protected from natural disasters (and medical ones).
Stability means that my money will be accepted wherever I go.
Stability means that my language will be understood wherever I go.
Stability means I will not be captured by vigilantes (or foreign
soldiers).  Enough?

Not every country implements all those stabilizing features, and that
certainly isn't a complete list, but it makes the point.  In order to
build a rich and nurturing civilization, in which people are able to
be more than mere animals, the builders of such need to
stop having to worry about personal survival all of the time.
Government allows them to do that.



-- 

Sport Death,
Larry Kolodney
(USENET) ...{decvax | ihnp4!mit-eddie}!genrad!panda!lkk
(INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa

Life is either a daring adventure,
or nothing.
- Helen Keller