Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbjade.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!ucdavis!ucbvax!ucbjade!mwm
From: mwm@ucbopal.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (I'll be mellow when I'm dead) Meyer)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Government and stability
Message-ID: <131@ucbjade.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Sat, 26-Oct-85 00:50:17 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbjade.131
Posted: Sat Oct 26 00:50:17 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 31-Oct-85 05:20:23 EST
References: <1473@teddy.UUCP> <28200189@inmet.UUCP> <1496@teddy.UUCP>
Sender: network@ucbjade.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: mwm@ucbopal.UUCP (Mike (I'll be mellow when I'm dead) Meyer)
Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica
Lines: 49

In article <1496@teddy.UUCP> lkk@teddy.UUCP (Larry K. Kolodney) writes:
>Right now, world government is a plutochracy.  The courts and police are
>controlled by them that gots.  That is how it would be in libertaria as well.

Right. This is a good reason for stripping the courts and police of much of
their power (ditto for politicians - whom you forgot to mention). Can you
describe a system where that isn't true, and won't become true as them that
gots spend what they gots to make it become true?

>But I must admit I overstated my case.  TRADE does not require a government,
>only people willing to exchange things.  But there's more to an economy besides
>trade, namely PRODUCTION.  I would argue that PRODUCTION (and investment)
>requires the stability provided by government.

[Cheap shot coming, please excuse me :-]
[Engage sanity check - cancel cheap shot. :-]

Larry is backpedalling from his previous position that Government requires
trade. He's found a worse position where he maintains that

	1) Government implies stability.
	2) Stability is required for production.

If this were anybody but Larry (or a few others), I'd assume that
"stability" mean "nobody stealing your means of production." But since it is
who it is, I'm going to use "not readily changed or easily destroyed"
(paraphrased from OAD).

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.]

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.

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.

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