nrh@inmet.UUCP (06/16/85)
Arrgh! Once again, the notion of "if the government doesn't provide it, it won't be provided" comes forth. THINK about it, people. Just because the government offers contract enforcement services doesn't mean that nobody else will. Indeed, the government is so bad at this that arbitration groups are becoming increasingly popular. The government courts tend to back up the decisions of arbiters, so such decisions seldom require direct enforcement; a logical outcome of this setup is that the ARBITERS would pay for government enforcement, charging low rates because they would only seldom have to ask the government to step in. Now think about it again: ENFORCEMENT need not be a monopoly of government -- there are several ways in which this might work, but the most obvious is that people who do not obey court decisions find it tough to enter into agreements with others. As Sykora pointed out, contributing to enforcement services for the poor would be a good choice for charitable giving.
ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (06/23/85)
> Just because the government offers contract enforcement services doesn't > mean that nobody else will. Indeed, the government is so bad at this that > arbitration groups are becoming increasingly popular. That's certainly true. The Mafia, for example, has very effective ways of enforcing their contracts. But since I believe that the government should have a legal monopoly on the use of force against people, it should not be legal for anyone but the government to enforce contracts.
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/27/85)
> > Just because the government offers contract enforcement services doesn't > > mean that nobody else will. Indeed, the government is so bad at this that > > arbitration groups are becoming increasingly popular. > > That's certainly true. The Mafia, for example, has very effective ways > of enforcing their contracts. > > But since I believe that the government should have a legal monopoly > on the use of force against people, it should not be legal for anyone > but the government to enforce contracts. The original comment referred to *arbitration* groups, not the Mafia. You are also comparing the Mafia forcing people to abide by (usually coerced) contracts *in which they have a financial interest*, as opposed to an impartial observer.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (06/30/85)
>/**** inmet:net.politics / alice!ark / 11:08 am Jun 23, 1985 ****/ >> Just because the government offers contract enforcement services doesn't >> mean that nobody else will. Indeed, the government is so bad at this that >> arbitration groups are becoming increasingly popular. > >That's certainly true. The Mafia, for example, has very effective ways >of enforcing their contracts. > >But since I believe that the government should have a legal monopoly >on the use of force against people, it should not be legal for anyone >but the government to enforce contracts. >/* ---------- */ Which government? The Staties? The City? The Feds? The County? The CIA? The NSA? We live, RIGHT NOW in a situation in which various agencies claim the power to use force against us. That some of these are "legal", such as the FBI and the state Troopers, means that their actions are subject to judicial review. My point was that government is not good at enforcing contracts right now, but references to the Mafia merely distort the situation, as they are clearly aggressors. What libertarians propose tends to be more competing above-ground police forces which make agreements among themselves, not unilateral aggression by underground organizations dedicated (as I understand the Mafia, anyhow) to the advancement of its members.