Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!flink
From: flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Financing the government of a free society
Message-ID: <184@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 13-Jun-85 21:34:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.184
Posted: Thu Jun 13 21:34:17 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Jun-85 10:05:19 EDT
References: <3841@alice.UUCP> <1340197@acf4.UUCP>
Reply-To: flink@maryland.UUCP (Paul V. Torek)
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 34

>>> = 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!)