Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!think!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Financing the government of a free s
Message-ID: <7800339@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 16-Jun-85 01:16:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.7800339
Posted: Sun Jun 16 01:16:00 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 23-Jun-85 02:49:01 EDT
References: <3841@alice.UUCP>
Lines: 21
Nf-ID: #R:alice:-384100:inmet:7800339:000:1003
Nf-From: inmet!nrh    Jun 16 01:16:00 1985


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.