Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Re: The free market (and lemons)
Message-ID: <28200390@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 15-Dec-85 08:59:00 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.28200390
Posted: Sun Dec 15 08:59:00 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Dec-85 19:52:40 EST
References: <849@mmintl.UUCP>
Lines: 25
Nf-ID: #R:mmintl:-84900:inmet:28200390:000:1208
Nf-From: inmet!janw    Dec 15 08:59:00 1985


[nrh@inmet.UUCP]
>As I've argued before: just because the government in theory (or any
>beneficent, disinterested, arms-bearing force) could "solve" this sort
>of problem doesn't mean that the historical outcome will be a solution.
>A powerful government bears all our own imperfections (in the 
>transplant case, probably sloth, greed, and ignorance) magnified.

This appears to be the proper generic rebuttal to *any* statist
claims in the fields of health, education, welfare or the economy -
in all areas, in fact, except defence and law-and-order.

The reason these areas are different is that here the government,
in protecting its own prerogatives (which all organizations tend to
do), tends to defend the citizen. The same is true of any mafia godfather.

Historically, libertarian societies (e.g., communities of states)
have fallen through internal and external strife.
This is the problem for anarcholibertarianism.

The problem for minarchism  is  that  governments,  given  enough
power  in  some  areas,  tend  to extend it - especially in cases
where momentarily their interference is,  or  seems,  beneficial.
Most  of present power of governments was acquired in emergencies,
then retained.