ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (06/09/85)
One plausible method I have heard of financing the government of a free society would be for the government to charge for one of the services it provides: enforcement of contracts. To wit: if you and I sign a contract, and we want to be able to go to court to force compliance with the contract, we must pay some fee up front for that service. If we are willing to gamble on each others' reputations, we are free to decline the service. The government would set the fee as it wished; there would be some level that would maximize income and that's where the fee would presumably be pegged. The fact that the service is optional would keep it from getting too expensive. Since there would be no way to enforce a contract otherwise, people would have plenty of incentive to use it. This plan has several advantages: you get what you pay for, government financing is voluntary, and there's a built-in incentive against abuse.
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (06/11/85)
> One plausible method I have heard of financing the government > of a free society would be for the government to charge > for one of the services it provides: enforcement of contracts. > > To wit: if you and I sign a contract, and we want to be able > to go to court to force compliance with the contract, we must > pay some fee up front for that service. If we are willing to > gamble on each others' reputations, we are free to decline the > service. The government would set the fee as it wished; there > would be some level that would maximize income and that's > where the fee would presumably be pegged. The fact that the > service is optional would keep it from getting too expensive. > Since there would be no way to enforce a contract otherwise, > people would have plenty of incentive to use it. > Doesn't this mean that the poor are thus going to be denied the protection of contract enforcement? Justice for those who can afford it is nothing new. Baba
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/12/85)
>/* baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) / 2:12 pm Jun 11, 1985 */ > One plausible method I have heard of financing the government > of a free society would be for the government to charge > for one of the services it provides: enforcement of contracts. > > To wit: if you and I sign a contract, and we want to be able > to go to court to force compliance with the contract, we must > pay some fee up front for that service. If we are willing to > gamble on each others' reputations, we are free to decline the > service. The government would set the fee as it wished; there > would be some level that would maximize income and that's > where the fee would presumably be pegged. The fact that the > service is optional would keep it from getting too expensive. > Since there would be no way to enforce a contract otherwise, > people would have plenty of incentive to use it. > >Doesn't this mean that the poor are thus going to be denied >the protection of contract enforcement? Justice for those >who can afford it is nothing new. No. What type of contract would a poor person engage in? I suspect the most common kind would be one for employment. If it was worth it to the employer he could pay the fee for the employee. If not, the employee could pay it out of his salary. If the employee could not afford the fee, he would have to look for another job. If the employee could not find another job, he would either have to take the job without the insurance of contract enforcement, or he could rely on charity to pay it. Also, if people wanted to contribute to a contract enforcement agency that would provide free enforcement for the poor, that would be an excellent way of giving charity. > Baba Mike Sykora
flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (06/13/85)
In article <3841@alice.UUCP> ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) writes: >One plausible method I have heard of financing the government >of a free society would be for the government to charge >for one of the services it provides: enforcement of contracts. >To wit: if you and I sign a contract, and we want to be able >to go to court to force compliance with the contract, we must >pay some fee up front for that service. [...] It depends what you want to finance. This issue was raised by someone who wanted to know how national defense would be financed. In order to finance the army, the government will have to charge a fee that will be higher than the fees private companies charge for courts and enforcement. Thus, people will go to the private companies unless the govt. is limited to police + courts (no army). -- "Libertarians -- keeping the world safe from democracy"
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/13/85)
>/* flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) / 5:26 pm Jun 12, 1985 */ > >It depends what you want to finance. This issue was raised by >someone who wanted to know how national defense would be financed. In >order to finance the army, the government will have to charge a fee >that will be higher than the fees private companies charge for courts >and enforcement. Thus, people will go to the private companies I don't follow whta youy're saying, but these seem to be separate but related issues. Of course, we cannot have competing armies, and armies cannot be replaced by courts + police. I didn't see anyone suggest this. >"Libertarians -- keeping the world safe from democracy" What is so great about democracy. I see no inherent moral value in it, but it does seem like the best system for choosing governments. Libertarianism does not deal with how governments are chosen (at least mine doesn't), but rather what is the proper role of government. The question of how to choose a government seems to me to be a technical question, though obviously a critical one. Mike Sykora
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/14/85)
>/* flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) / 5:26 pm Jun 12, 1985 */ > >It depends what you want to finance. This issue was raised by >someone who wanted to know how national defense would be financed. In >order to finance the army, the government will have to charge a fee >that will be higher than the fees private companies charge for courts >and enforcement. Thus, people will go to the private companies I don't follow what you're saying, but these seem to be separate but related issues. Of course, we cannot have competing armies, and armies cannot be replaced by courts + police. I didn't see anyone suggest this. >"Libertarians -- keeping the world safe from democracy" What is so great about democracy. I see no inherent moral value in it, but it does seem like the best system for choosing governments. Libertarianism does not deal with how governments are chosen (at least mine doesn't), but rather what is the proper role of government. The question of how to choose a government seems to me to be a technical question, though obviously a critical one. Mike Sykora
flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (06/14/85)
>>> = Andrew Koenig, >>= me, > = Michael M. Sykora >>>One plausible method I have heard of financing the government >>>of a free society would be for the government to charge >>>for one of the services it provides: enforcement of contracts. >> >>It depends what you want to finance. This issue was raised by >>someone who wanted to know how national defense would be financed. In >>order to finance the army, the government will have to charge a fee >>that will be higher than the fees private companies charge for courts >>and enforcement. Thus, people will go to the private companies > >I don't follow whta youy're saying, but these seem to be separate but >related issues. Of course, we cannot have competing armies, and armies >cannot be replaced by courts + police. I didn't see anyone suggest this. What I'm saying is that you can't finance government -- if government includes an army, and most libertarians say it should -- in the way Andrew Koenig suggests. You can only finance, by Koenig's method, that part of government devoted to enforcement of contracts. >>"Libertarians -- keeping the world safe from democracy" > >What is so great about democracy. I see no inherent moral value in it, >but it does seem like the best system for choosing governments. Agreed. >Libertarianism does not deal with how governments are chosen (at least >mine doesn't), but rather what is the proper role of government. Indeed, but you do seek to limit the scope of democratic control. (Incidentally, who tells govt what its roles are? The govt, as informed by voters' preferences? Uh-oh -- sounds like what we have now!)
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (06/15/85)
>/* flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) / 9:34 pm Jun 13, 1985 */ >Indeed, but you do seek to limit the scope of democratic control. >(Incidentally, who tells govt what its roles are? The govt, as informed >by voters' preferences? Uh-oh -- sounds like what we have now!) I imagine everyone seeks to limit the scope of democratic control for practical as well as ethical reasons. On the ethical side, the fact that some people advocate a position, be these people a majority or not, does not justify a position morally. On the practical side, it would indeed be ridiculous to attempt to subject every decision made by any member of society to "voters' preferences." Mike Sykora
flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (06/18/85)
Mike Sykora, can I take your silence on the subject of financing national defense a la Koenig's suggestion, as a sign that you agree with me? I agree with you that "limiting the scope of democratic control" makes sense -- if it is done as follows. I think that some things (e.g. the things prohibited by the 1st amendment) should be outside the power of the legislature (Congress), but that the Constitution itself should be open to change by democratic procedures (requiring more than a simple majority) -- much as it is now. Now, you haven't answered my question: HOW do YOU propose that government should be "limited" to "its proper role"? By a non- amendable constitution, or what?
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/18/85)
>/* flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) / 5:49 pm Jun 17, 1985 */ >Mike Sykora, can I take your silence on the subject of financing >national defense a la Koenig's suggestion, as a sign that you agree >with me? I spoke about financing defense a couple of times, but I'm not sure it involved Koenig's sugestion. What was Koenig's suggestion? >Now, you haven't answered my question: HOW do YOU propose that >government should be "limited" to "its proper role"? By a non- >amendable constitution, or what? This is an interesting and difficlt technical question. Yo can take my silence to mean that I'm thinking about it. Mike Sykora
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (06/20/85)
>I imagine everyone seeks to limit the scope of democratic control for >practical as well as ethical reasons. On the ethical side, the >fact that some people advocate a position, be these people a majority or >not, does not justify a position morally. On the practical side, it >would indeed be ridiculous to attempt to subject every decision made >by any member of society to "voters' preferences." > > Mike Sykora This brings up a (to me) strong argument for government "interference," to counterbalance the overwhelming forces toward social conformity. If the government does not allow my neighbours to force me to go to church, to have the "right" flowers in my garden, and so forth, my freedom is thereby enhanced. If the government supports my neighbours in these things (as local governments so often do in the name of democracy), my freedom is reduced. Government is needed in the name of freedom, but government must be distinct from direct democracy. I fear social pressure to conformity more than I fear (here and now) government controls on my behaviour. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (06/21/85)
In article <1582@dciem.UUCP>, mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) writes: > > If the government does not allow my neighbours to force me to go to > church, to have the "right" flowers in my garden, and so forth, my > freedom is thereby enhanced. If the government supports my neighbours > in these things (as local governments so often do in the name of > democracy), my freedom is reduced. Government is needed in the name > of freedom, but government must be distinct from direct democracy. > I fear social pressure to conformity more than I fear (here and now) > government controls on my behaviour. > -- > > Martin Taylor > {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt > {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt I agree wholeheartedly with this, and my fears are similar too. Perhaps the happy medium is more complex than this, however. I fear unanimous social pressure, where government or others gang up on me to force me to change. However, a little social pressure to thumb my nose at or to take as useful advice, as the occasion warrants, seems much better to me than no social pressure at all. Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (06/22/85)
In article <1340208@acf4.UUCP> mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes: >I spoke about financing defense a couple of times, but I'm not sure >it involved Koenig's sugestion. What was Koenig's suggestion? Koenig's suggestion was that government (presumably, he meant the entire government, including the defense department) might be financed through "contract enforcement fees", whereby everyone who signed a contract must pay a fee or else the government wouldn't enforce that contract.
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/25/85)
>/* mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) / 7:26 pm Jun 19, 1985 */ >If the government does not allow my neighbours to force me to go to >church, to have the "right" flowers in my garden, and so forth, my >freedom is thereby enhanced. If the government supports my neighbours >in these things (as local governments so often do in the name of >democracy), my freedom is reduced. > . . . >I fear social pressure to conformity more than I fear (here and now) >government controls on my behaviour. You seem to have indicated above that governments frequently support communities that put social pressure on individuals. By taking the power to do this away from governments, we can take much of the bite out of social pressure, but we probably can't eliminate such pressure completely without using even more repressive government. >Martin Taylor Mike Sykora
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (07/01/85)
>>If the government does not allow my neighbours to force me to go to >>church, to have the "right" flowers in my garden, and so forth, my >>freedom is thereby enhanced. If the government supports my neighbours >>in these things (as local governments so often do in the name of >>democracy), my freedom is reduced. >> . . . >>I fear social pressure to conformity more than I fear (here and now) >>government controls on my behaviour. > >You seem to have indicated above that governments frequently support >communities that put social pressure on individuals. By taking the >power to do this away from governments, we can take much of the bite >out of social pressure, but we probably can't eliminate such pressure >completely without using even more repressive government. > >>Martin Taylor > > Mike Sykora Nope. Our Western governments normally run under laws that protect people against pressures for social conformity on most issues (not all; it can go both ways). The more local, and the more "democratic" (i.e. town-meeting style) the government, the more likely is the pressure from government to be toward social conformity. Larger-scale government is more removed from the pressures of a single social group, and is thus more likely to work in favour of the individual as opposed to the group. It isn't more repressive government that can assist this relief from social pressure, but more attention to the law as opposed to the local, here-and-now will of the people. That's what the ACLU and related groups are all about. Is it why right-wingers dislike those groups so much? In other postings, Sykora has claimed that a strong-willed individual should be resistant to high-powered government propaganda, as well as to social pressures from the neighbours. The other side of that coin is that this strong-willed individual is totally alone, relying on internal insights as opposed to information that can be obtained from outside sources. Their own ideas prevail against rational argument, as well as against the emotional force of social and propagandist pressures. There might be such people, but (a) they are probably few in number, and (b) they would be unlikely to fit into any kind of social structure such as humanity has evolved from, and now needs more than ever it did. Social humans NEED to be susceptible to social pressures, and to accept a moderate degree of conformity, just as they NEED to be able to display individualistic (eccentric) traits. The problem (as always) is to achieve a good balance. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (07/08/85)
>/* mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) / 1:04 pm Jul 1, 1985 */ >Nope. Our Western governments normally run under laws that protect people >against pressures for social conformity on most issues (not all; it can >go both ways). The more local, and the more "democratic" (i.e. town-meeting >style) the government, the more likely is the pressure from government >to be toward social conformity. I was referring to government, and that includes local ones as well. >Is it why right-wingers dislike those groups so much? Perhaps, but to be sure you'll have to ask a right-winger, whatever that is. >The other side of that coin >is that this strong-willed individual is totally alone, relying on >internal insights as opposed to information that can be obtained from >outside sources. It is not clear what type of information you are referring to and just what "outside sources" are. Please elaborate. >Their own ideas prevail against rational argument, How does this follow merely from the fact that an individual is "strong- willed." >There might be such people, but (a) they are probably few >in number, and (b) they would be unlikely to fit into any kind of >social structure such as humanity has evolved from, and now needs more >than ever it did. If such people are few in number I suspect that it is due at least in part to the inculcation of authoritarian views of the world to children by society. As to your contention that humanity needs more social structure, I can only speak for myself, and I certainly have more than I can handle. If you mean more community between people in general, I can agree, but only voluntary community would be beneficial. >Social humans NEED to be susceptible to social >pressures, and to accept a moderate degree of conformity, just as they >NEED to be able to display individualistic (eccentric) traits. Yes, but perhaps our society overstresses conformity. I think so. You seem to also. >Martin Taylor Mike Sykora