Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Laws of Libertaria
Message-ID: <903@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 23-Jan-86 16:39:55 EST
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.903
Posted: Thu Jan 23 16:39:55 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 25-Jan-86 09:45:53 EST
References: <28200585@inmet.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 23
Summary: 

In article <28200585@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes:
> >Why do you contract for laws?  Are you fair game for anyone otherwise?
> Not entirely; the operation of other people's laws will give
> you some protection; but your rights may be reduced and you
> don't get the choice of laws. The first disadvantage is similar
> to the situation of an individual without a citizenship in
> a world of states. The second is the lot of everyone now.

If each of the suppliers of "law" is competing against the others in
the market, then obviously they are going to attempt to maximize
their income.  Why shouldn't they simply proclaim that everybody
must obey their laws and pay for them?  What's to stop this positive
feedback back into feudalism?

There's a game whose name I can't remember, where the players start out
equal in a legislative system with a constitution.  They can make any
ammendments to the constitution by the procedures in the constitution.
The winner is the one who achieves absolute power.  I gather the game
tends to end in that state.  (Anyone remember the name or a better
description?  Mail please, unless in a response to the rest of this note.)
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh