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!cca!inmet!nrh From: nrh@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Role of the state in the economy Message-ID: <28200138@inmet.UUCP> Date: Sun, 6-Oct-85 19:21:00 EDT Article-I.D.: inmet.28200138 Posted: Sun Oct 6 19:21:00 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 9-Oct-85 06:52:44 EDT References: <205@gargoyle.UUCP> Lines: 107 Nf-ID: #R:gargoyle:-20500:inmet:28200138:000:5159 Nf-From: inmet!nrh Oct 6 19:21:00 1985 >/* Written 6:18 pm Oct 3, 1985 by carnes@gargoyle in inmet:net.politics.t */ >/* ---------- "Role of the state in the economy" ---------- */ >[Kolodney] >>>The entire economy, without which the concept of wealth would be >>>meaningless, is based on a governmentally created and controlled >>>system of commerce. >> >>[nrh] >>Governmentally Created? I find that MOST difficult to believe. What >>records do you have to substantiate that government created commerce, >>rather than distorting what was there? In particular, the use of >>non-government-created money (such as gold) predates official money, >>with (so far as I know) the first government inflation being that of >>ancient Rome. >> >>Government "controlled"? Why yes, that's quite true, but it doesn't >>explain why the Chinese starvation dropped when their government >>began allowing folks to sell crops privately. In short, you've confused >>"controlled", with "aided". >[carnes] >I agree that governments have been the source of a huge amount of >economic decline in the past and present. However, it is also true >that government, or the state, is essential for economic growth. Hold on thar! Were it strictly true as you're saying it, then by definition there could be no WORLD growth in the economy (there being no world government). The points you make below about lowering transaction costs and providing standards surely do not hold BETWEEN nations, and yet I would think it incontestable that the world economy, and world trade have prospered and grown, WITHOUT WORLD GOVERNMENT. If you object that the growth has occurred because of the prosperity of component states, I object that it is clear, then, that governments need not control all trade to benefit from it, and obvious that even smaller states (perhaps libertarian co-operative agencies one could leave or join at will) could prosper as well. >By >"the state" I mean here an organization that has a comparative >advantage in violence and which extends over a geographic area >determined by its power to tax. Its comparative advantage in >violence enables it to specify and enforce property rights. (This >bears on the space colony Anarchia: assuming it can come into >existence in the first place, how would property rights be specified >and enforced, except by such an organization?) Hmmm.... Were Anarchia built, it would presumably be built by people who had some ideas about this. Two of the possible answers to your question: o Anarchia built by a private individual, and run that way, as his "property" -- the owner then spells out the "law" in agreements with the "clients". o Anarchia built by co-operating people, agreeing in advance what shall constitute property rights, and specifying how conflicts shall be resolved. >The creation of the state in antiquity was the necessary condition >for all subsequent economic development. "The creation of toenail-picking was ALSO the necessary condition for all subsequent economic development". Impossible to prove or disprove, just as with your statement. While we agree that toenail-picking has less to do with economics than does government, your statement implies that there would have been no "subsequent economic development" without government. I invite you to try to establish such a proposition. >What the state does is to >provide the basic rules of the game, almost any set of which is >better than no rules. The rules have two objectives: That "almost any set of which is better than no rules" strikes me as ludicrous. It would have brought grim smiles to the faces of the people starved to death by government edict (in Russia) or those overrun by the Germans in WWII. Face it kiddo, the reason one NEEDS governments is to IMPOSE certain sorts of behavior. People tend to go along with behavior they find profitable and just. People have to be forced to do things they find evil or harmful to themselves. Lacking government, you may only cause the latter sort of behavior when you can delude people. Given government, you have an enormous amount of leverage to force people to do bad things. >.... >Individuals who have been given a choice >between a state, however exploitative, and anarchy, have, throughout >history, chosen the state. This is a pretty empty statement. As near as I can tell, it suggests that, throughout history, at least two people (the plural of "individual" is used, but that's all we get for numbers) have chosen SOME sort of state over SOME sort of Anarchy. This doesn't say much. It could be, for example, that all but two of such individuals chose things the other way. If you MEAN that people mostly choose repressive states over anarchy, I invite you to establish THAT proposition, especially in view of the fact that ancient Ireland (which was essentially anarchic) had to be CONQUERED by England (somehow, the Tuathas just didn't choose things the way Richard wanted them to). >Libertarians need to be able to give a >satisfactory explanation for this uncooperative fact. What, that 2 people (or perhaps more) did this? Perversity, I guess.