Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!bbnccv!inmet!nrh From: nrh@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Orphaned Response Message-ID: <7800402@inmet.UUCP> Date: Fri, 30-Aug-85 23:57:00 EDT Article-I.D.: inmet.7800402 Posted: Fri Aug 30 23:57:00 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 2-Sep-85 08:51:01 EDT References: <1187@umcp-cs.UUCP> Lines: 60 Nf-ID: #R:umcp-cs:-118700:inmet:7800402:177600:3254 Nf-From: inmet!nrh Aug 30 23:57:00 1985 >/* Written 6:15 pm Aug 16, 1985 by umcp-cs!mangoe in inmet:net.politics */ >In article <7800377@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes: > >>Charles: as with the discussion of consumer testing agencies, you seem >>to have never heard of the private agencies that already accomplish the >>things you think must be done by government. Netnews makes people sound >>nastier than they mean to be (some study at CMU tends to confirm this, >>I'm told) so please don't take the following advice unkindly: Please try >>to consider what private alternatives exist before arguing that >>something must be done by government. A surprising (and to me, >>heartening) number of things most folks feel must be done by government >>are done quietly and efficiently by private organizations. > >I don't think you understand the nature of my concerns. I have no problems >per se with a private post office, or with any of a host of proposals. But >using UPS or UL or Consumer's Union as examples has serious pitfalls, since >all of these facilities exist in an environment where there are governmental >agencies to pick up the business that these organizations cannot or will not >take on. It simply doesn't follow that, in the absence of such agencies, >private corporations will fill the void. Perhaps they will, but I think it's >likely that some business currently handled by the government would not be >picked up. Examples? Mail and consumer testing are (to me) pretty obvious winners in a private environment. There's a clear market, and private agencies have been viable EVEN THOUGH the government was offering similar services "for free". What do you think the government absolutely MUST do? >In the case of private corporations picking up enforcement duties, I get >the strong impression that people simply don't care that such a system >would perpetuate the current situation which enormously favors those >with money. When justice is something you buy, it is hard for me to >imagine that any but the rich will have justice. If you own the local police in (say) New York (perhaps by owning the Police Commissioner) that's it -- you've got a lock on it. You need not worry about the poor forming independent police agencies (or do you?) and you need not worry about collecting revenues from people who don't like your service. In a libertarian society, you've got to watch out for "Guardian Angels, INC", "Pinkerton Protectives", and a host of others. If a functionary you've corrupted is discovered you can't just retire him, buy his assistant, and quash the investigation -- you've got to buy off all the other protective agencies -- and if you haven't done this already, you've got very little control of "justice" in a region. Oh, Justice would be for sale in a libertarian society, but for a much higher price than it is in ours. And of course there'd be no question of things like gun control prohibiting people from owning the means to protect themselves (unless they volunteered). Would idealistic and honest civil refuse to be bought? Sure, but so would idealistic and honest employees. By the way, does anyone have figures indicative of relative honesty (private vs. public sector)? Say, percentage incidence of supply disappearance?