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: <904@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 23-Jan-86 17:15:11 EST
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.904
Posted: Thu Jan 23 17:15:11 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 25-Jan-86 09:46:09 EST
References: <28200585@inmet.UUCP> <28200587@inmet.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 54
Summary: 

In article <28200587@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes:
> 
> [Mike Huybensz  ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh]
> >> You are quite right that arbitration doesn't work  when  one  of
> >> the parties is powerless. This is a point that needed to be made.
> 
> >Not generally powerless: powerless with respect to one party at one
> >particular time is all that is necessary.  
> 
> Sure: but, in an interdependent society, one kind of power at one
> place  can  be  negotiated  into another kind of power in another
> place. I once wrote a senator about a dissident friend of mine in
> Russia,  and  got  a very helpful reply.

Where was the exercise of power: did anything change in Russia?

> The point of this is, he
> wasn't a senator from *my* state; and certainly not a  senator
> from Russia; there are hardly any Soviet immigrants in his state,
> too. But being helpful  *may*  help  him  indirectly,  some  day.
> This is how it works in democracy, for  which I have two cheers.

Words are cheap.  Power isn't.  I'm not real impressed by the negotiation
of words at one time for a possible vote later: at least not as an
example of negotiating power in one place into power in another.

> >So then how does an aggreived but "powerless" party get satisfac-
> >tion in your libertaria?
> 
> Two sides should be discerned in this question: the *mechanisms*
> of getting satisfaction; and the *motive force* activating
> these mechanisms. E.g., in our society, the Congress, the press,
> the lobbies etc. are the machinery through which the *interests*
> of, say, polluters and anti-polluters work. 

You also need to consider the efficiency of the machinery for
transmitting power.  That's a strong point of one government, and a
weak point between governments.

> The difference between [Libertaria] and status quo is that no institution
> has an artificial *monopoly* on the functions it is supposed
> to serve. The advantages are many.  Competition is an incentive
> for the institution to *really* serve the supposed function. Thus, even
> where de facto there is a monopoly (a natural monopoly)
> it works better and is sensitive to customers. 

By the definition of a natural monopoly, it is uneconomic for anyone to
compete.  So why would there be efficiency and responsiveness?

For that matter, what do you think is an example of a natural monopoly,
and why aren't governments natural monopolies by that standard?
-- 

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