esk@wucs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (10/24/84)
[wasn't it nice of Paul to let me use his account] You folks probably don't know me. My name is Walter Wego. I've been watching this discussion of libertarianism and I have a few of my own comments. How can any of you libertarians out there support the existence of government? Don't you know government is based on coercion? Govt. claims a monopoly on the right to use force within its territory (or at least to dictate the terms under which force may be used) -- that's a definition. (We might want to add extra conditions to this definition, like that a government has the might to enforce this monopoly claim -- thus a weak govt. might cease to be a govt. at all -- but the above condition is necessary.) All of the functions that some of you less consistent libertarians have accepted as proper roles of govt., could in principle be provided in the free market. Consider police protection and the administration of justice. There already exist private security firms that one can hire. In a libertarian society, everyone would have their choice among these type of firms in the free market. Those who could not afford them could get together with others in their neighborhood and form self-defense associations. If anyone in the association is hurt and the guilty party can be determined, appropriate punishment will be administered by the group. If associations and/or protection agencies ever come into conflict, they can settle their differences by hiring an arbitration agency (already done today in many labor-management disputes). After all, arbitration is much better for the clients of protection agencies than trying to settle disputes by force. That the free market can accomplish this and other functions that supposedly require government is argued well by Sanders, *The Ethical Argument Against Government*. Of course, my friend Paul here will probably complain about "externalities" and "public goods", but the proper reply to him is that whether or not those are problems for the free market, it simply violates people's rights for the govt. to try to provide "public goods" by taxing to pay for them. Let's have some consistency, fellow libertarians! Next time I'll look at human rights and what they imply about our rights to use or exclusive use of physical objects (including objects improved by labor). --Walter "I've got bad news and good news about the election. The bad news is that Ronald Reagan will win. The good news is that Walter Mondale won't." -- columnist Stephen Chapman Brought to you by the Stephen Chapman for President Committee, Paul V Torek, chairman (ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047) Please send any mail to this address, not the sender's. Thanks.
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (10/25/84)
================
All of the functions that some of you less consistent libertarians
have accepted as proper roles of govt., could in principle be
provided in the free market. Consider police protection and the
administration of justice. There already exist private security
firms that one can hire. In a libertarian society, everyone would
have their choice among these type of firms in the free market.
================
Of course, we once had such a system. No-one now alive remembers the
time of private fire departments, but lots of houses went up in smoke
because they bore the shield of a company competing with the one the
person who saw the smoke called. I'd rather have a publicly operated
monopoly, thanks. I'd also like to do away with private security
companies; people licenced to carry guns make me nervous, and I think
we would have more efficient security with a well funded and trained
police than by dissipating the resources among private firms whose
objective is not to serve, but to make a profit.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmtnrh@inmet.UUCP (10/31/84)
#R:wucs:-43500:inmet:7800148:000:1805 inmet!nrh Oct 29 23:56:00 1984 >***** inmet:net.politics / dciem!w / 10:57 am Oct 28, 1984 >Of course, we once had such a system. No-one now alive remembers the >time of private fire departments, *I* remember those days: there's some town in Arizona where the fire companies are private. I don't know the details, but National Geographic did an article favorably comparing the private companies with public ones. I suspect it may be a state-licensed thing: the state hires a private agency to take care of fires, but unquestionably the private agency is in it for the money. >but lots of houses went up in smoke >because they bore the shield of a company competing with the one the >person who saw the smoke called. Care to back this up? I'd particularly enjoy something like a comparison between the average uncompensated loss due to fire in the privately-run fire departments with that of publicly-owned fire departments. >I'd rather have a publicly operated >monopoly, thanks. Why that's MIGHTY generous of you to be willing to tax us to fit your ideals. MIGHTY generous. >I'd also like to do away with private security >companies; people licenced to carry guns make me nervous, and I think >we would have more efficient security with a well funded and trained >police than by dissipating the resources among private firms whose >objective is not to serve, but to make a profit. "Dissipating" resources? Yes sir! Those public police forces sure do the job! Ask anyone whose ever been broken in on by the DEA. That's what we need all right -- MORE police, and BETTER police. Thanks, but I'll take the private fire department, and the private security firms -- they are after profit, so they are answerable to their customers. Public officials, of course, particularly career beaurocrats, are much less so.
jdb@qubix.UUCP (Jeff Bulf) (11/02/84)
> >but lots of houses went up in smoke > >because they bore the shield of a company competing with the one the > >person who saw the smoke called. > > Care to back this up? I'd particularly enjoy something > like a comparison between the average uncompensated loss due > to fire in the privately-run fire departments with that of > publicly-owned fire departments. Wish I could offer it! As it is, I can add one data point to this picture. One of my fellow inspectors at the insurance rating bureau that handled much of Arizona told me of an incident he had witnessed before I started working there. A small corner-shopping center had caught fire. The building was at about the jurisdictional boundary of three fire departments: Tempe (public), Phoenix (public) and Scottsdale (corporate). As I understand it, the building burned to the ground while the three fire departments tried to work out whose juridiction the fire was in. There does not seem to have been a behavioral difference here between the two public departments and their corporate counterpart. "Since it costs a lot to win, and even more to lose, you and me might have spent some time wondering what to choose." -- Dr Memory ...{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!decwrl!qubix!jdb