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!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!bbnccv!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <28200055@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 2-Sep-85 01:42:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.28200055
Posted: Mon Sep  2 01:42:00 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 5-Sep-85 00:57:05 EDT
References: <1344@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Lines: 48
Nf-ID: #R:umcp-cs:-134400:inmet:28200055:177600:2491
Nf-From: inmet!nrh    Sep  2 01:42:00 1985


>/* Written  9:29 pm  Aug 22, 1985 by umcp-cs!flink in inmet:net.politics.t */
>/* ---------- "Re: Seatbelts for passengers (micro" ---------- */
>In article <160@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes:
>>...  Such patterns are common in interactions among people (they are
>>often called Prisoner's Dilemma or Free Rider situations), and in
>>general, individual rationality does not lead to a collectively
>>optimal situation.  The free market is a special case: the market
>>"works" (in the sense it may be said to work) because each agent
>>enters the marketplace *voluntarily*.  But this is not the general
>>case with social interactions.
>
>Indeed, Free Rider situations are a systematic problem for libertarianism,
>which can at best take care of negative impacts inadvertantly inflicted
>by everyone on others (e.g. pollution), not positive impacts (e.g. the
>benefits one gives others by contributing to national defense).  It
>cannot even handle all the negative impact situations adequately.  

My standard response to such questions is to ask what evidence there is
that governments do any better, including their costs -- agreed they
theoretically could internalize such things, but HAVE THEY EVER DONE IT
WELL?  OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS?  Including the little games that the
structures (nations) meant to internalize externalities tend to like
(you know, wars, slavery, oppression, genocide)?

I think not.  That government COULD do well but does not is pretty
obvious -- else, from what I've read recently, they'd probably be
adopting Clarke taxes, but they are not.

>Liber-
>tarian arguments on such issues falter and must ultimately fall back on
>a fanatic insistence on the non-initiation principle, which, unfortunately,
>is completely without ground in logic or fact.

No basis in logic?  Given that one desires all human interactions to be
voluntary, it would seem logical to forbid those that are not.

Of course, that it is desirable that neither force nor fraud should
occur, and desirable that when this happens the instigators be dealt
with somehow, are postulates.  I know of no postulates, anywhere, that
have any basis in logic or fact.  Is that what you meant?  If so, your
comment is nugatory.

>--Paul V Torek, Iconoclast for all seasons  
>(coming soon to this theater near you: torek%umich-ciprnet@csnet-relay.arpa)

P.S.  No, I've not finished Clarke -- I'm going to have to purchase it
to make serious progress, so I will.  Ta-ta....