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