torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek ) (10/11/85)
In article <28200160@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes: >>OK, this is getting totally rediculous. The fact of the matter is that >>there are such things as positive externalities. > > [...] Unfortunately for you, >the government has no good way of limiting itself to doing good things. >I invite you, for example, to show me how the Viet-Nam war was a positive >externality opportunity, or how McCarthyism benefited us all in ways we >could not have been made to pay for. In short, I invite you to show that >government is a NET good (a tough task). To argue that it, unlike the >market, can take advantage of positive externality situations, or deal >properly with negative externality ones, is not enough. The fact is >that government does NOT limit itself to this, and does many bad things >as well. Ay, there's the rub. That IS the (i.e., THE) question. On the other hand, Kolodney and I would like to invite you to show that government is NOT a net good (a tough task!). Also, since nobody is *completely* satisfied with the status quo, we should be arguing about whose favorite "direction of social change" (if you will) gives the greatest returns per "amount of effort" (a vague notion here, but I'm afraid I can't do much better). Also, we should be arguing about which ideal system, INSOFAR as it is ACHIEVABLE in the real world at least in the long run, has the greatest promise. These are the issues. A clear statement of them will do much to facilitate debate. I welcome any attempts to give a clearer statemtent than, or improvements upon, the above. --Paul V Torek, getting somewhere torek@umich