Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mck-csc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!think!mck-csc!bmg
From: bmg@mck-csc.UUCP (Bernard M. Gunther)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: re: Stability?
Message-ID: <161@mck-csc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 7-Nov-85 13:44:09 EST
Article-I.D.: mck-csc.161
Posted: Thu Nov  7 13:44:09 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 9-Nov-85 06:32:39 EST
References: <1473@teddy.UUCP> <28200189@inmet.UUCP>
Organization: McKinsey & Company, Cambridge Systems Center
Lines: 24

> To refresh your memory, the question at hand is: Does government provide
> stability, and is that stability necessary for production.
> 
> In article <1542@teddy.UUCP> lkk@teddy.UUCP (Larry K. Kolodney) writes:
> >>           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
>
Where are you deriving your facts about the indians in the Great Plains/
Louisiana Purchase Territories as being stable?  I know very little about
the times and lives of the inhabitants, but I tend to think that it might
not have been as 'stable' as you would like to think.  Do you have any
facts to support this?

Bernie Gunther