From: russ@alliant.com (Russell McFatter)
Subject: Re: Building a Society From Scratch (NOT!)
Organization: Alliant Computer Systems, Littleton, MA
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 21:57:21 GMT

In article <tervio.19@katk.Helsinki.FI> tervio@katk.Helsinki.FI (TERVI| MARKO J) writes:
>                                   
> A while ago someone in this newsgroup demanded the abolishing of traffic laws
>and random alcohol testing of drivers as violations of individual liberty,
>probably because the government owns the roads and also runs them. But what 
>if highways were private ? Wouldn't it be in the interest of the highway 
>companies to offer safe roads as a part of a good  product ?  Certainly the 
>owner has the right to define the terms in which his property, in this case 
>road space, may be rented.  Entering a highway is entering a trade, and one 
>of its terms is that the driver may be stopped for a drug test - this is to 
>protect the customers (and the reputation of the particular highway)  and 
>there's no need for responsible i.e. sober drivers to be upset about that.  

This would be fine if the "owner" of the roads were not a monopoly, and
did not use other powers to limit other modes of available transportation.

Let's complicate the matter a bit with the real facts:

	o  In order to maintain possession of my house, despite all
	   I might do to be self-sufficient, I need a continuous supply
	   of cash to pay the property taxes.

	o  For most people, this implies a need to work; and, at least
	   occasionally, travel to a place of business.

	o  The government declares, through zoning laws, that places of
	   business may not be anywhere near where I happen to live
	   (or, conversely, that I may not live anywhere within miles
	   of where I work).  I am "forced", at this point, into requiring
	   some form of transportation.

	o  The government also decides if any form of mass transit will
	   (will not) be available between my home and place of work.

	o  The fact that I have to use the "public" roads is used to
	   rationalize a test which may be intrusive, inaccurate, and test
	   far more than is necessary; furthermore, the results of the
	   test may be forged (faked) or irrelevant to the victimless
	   "crime" of which I could then be charged.

	o  If I am fined as a result of such a test, the proceeds go to
	   the very government that set up the scheme shown above;
	   therefore I am "forced" into the position of being on the
	   wrong end of a conflict of interest.

To go to a hypothetical example instead:

Big Time Airlines introduces a policy of performing complete drug
screens on all passengers (presumably to protect other passengers
from the malicious actions of "psychotic" druggies).  They in turn
sell the information gleaned from the drug tests to anyone
interested in paying for it (manufacturerers, researchers, insurance
companies, other individuals).  Big Time Airlines happens to have the
best prices, but I choose to avoid this intrusion by selecting a
slightly more-expensive airline-- and I also contribute to a
public information campaign to let other travellers know about
BTA's policies and practices.  Ultimately, BTA loses its ridership
and either changes its policies or goes out of business.  I have
"voted with my feet", because I had a choice.

The government usually does not let you "vote with your feet"; because
to do so you need to use their roads.  Public interest is usually
ignored in our supposedly "democratic" government.  Of all the
people in the USA, how many of the following would have received
majority approval?

	1:  The national 55 MPH speed limit
	2:  The (new) national 65 MPH speed limit
	3:  Current levels of Pentagon spending
	4:  Congressional exclusions to most laws applied to
	    those who are governed
	5:  Local Cable TV monopolies with legal protection
	6:  In general, most special-interest legislation
	7:  Personal tax breaks for millionaire friends of
	    Congressmen
	8:  Four full-time calligraphers for the White House
	9:  Billions of dollars in aid for countries that hate us
	10: SDI research
	11: Getting involved in Vietnam
	12: Spending taxpayer dollars to put the governor's name
	    on virtually every "Welcome to (our state)" and
	    "Your highway dollars at work" sign in the country
	13: The abortion "gag" rule
	14: Legislation that forces all trucking companies to
	    post rates with the ICC, and allows a virtually
	    unlimited timeframe in which a "discount" offered
	    to entice a customer can be retroactively billed
	    back to that customer (courtesy CBS 60 minutes)
	15: Federal tax subsidies to the Republican and Democratic
	    parties (millions and millions of your tax dollars
	    spent on party conventions, which are essentially
	    giant TV commercials)
	16: A "Department of Education" which, as the LP platform
	    puts it, educates no one
	17: The virtually incomprehensible mass of federal tax
	    legislation
	18: Congressional pay raises

>   Heck, who would monitor toy safety if the government didn't ?  Who would 
>make sure that all kinds of paints and drugs aren't be toxic if they didn't
>need to be approved by government agencies ?  There aren't yet consumer 
>information groups large and prestigious enough that people would trust like
>they trust the government (and very few people trust the profit motive which
>is anyway the consumer's best protector). 

I'd suppose you've never heard of Underwriter's Laboratories (UL), Factory
Mutual (FM), Consumer's Union (CU), or even Good Housekeeping?  All are
private organizations which test and review consumer items; UL and FM have
certification marks which are well-known and well-respected.  The procedure
you list for going from government approval of "everything" to voluntary,
private certification is reasonable, but uneccessary.  The following fiat
would suffice:

	"As of January 1, 1995, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
	 will no longer test food products and pharmecuticals for safety
	 or effectivness.  Consumers are urged to seek products bearing
	 the certification marks of reputable testing organizations, or
	 make purchases from retailers who certify the products they sell.
	 The FDA itself will be dissolved on July 1, 1995, at a tax
	 savings of ($billion) per year."

Nested certification (by a private testing company and the retailer) is
already employed in some markets.  Example:  When you make a purchase at
any USA Radio Shack (tm) store, you can be reasonably comfortable that any
AC-powered appliance you might buy is safe to use.  Why?  Radio Shack
certifies AC-powered gadgets through Underwriters' Laboratories.  UL tests
samples of each product for fire, physical, and shock hazards that the
product exhibits under various extremes of abuse (operating time, 
environmental conditions, wear) to make sure that, in normal use, the
device is unlikely to present any hazards to the user.  They also take
things apart to verify that the appliance meets certain standards of
design, as far as safety goes-- cords have strain reliefs, heating
appliances have backup thermal cut-outs, and so on.  A device which
fails (there's plenty of pictures of flaming vacuum cleaners, molten
table lamps, etc.) has the failing test identified in a report to the
manufacturer, who can then correct the deficiency and resubmit the
device for retesting.

Why would someone trust a voluntary certifier?

1:	Because other people do;
2:	Because the certifier has been in business for a long time.
3:	Because the certifier's process is open (i.e. you can see the
	procedures and methods used to test the products you buy)
4:	Because the scientific/engineering advisors of the organization
	are experts in their field
5:	Because the financial backing for the organization does not
        indicate a conflict of interest (the downfall of many "false"
	certifying organizations-- for example, the "Idaho" potato
	seal, the American Dairy Association's "Real" seal, the
	"Florida" orange juice seal, "Intel Inside", and any other
	mark which essentially belongs to the manufacturer of the
	product or a regional cooperative of such manufacturers.
	These marks attempt to mimic meaningful certifications, but
	themselves make no objective claims about safety, effectiveness,
	or even quality-- What is "Florida quality", exactly?)*
6:	The owner of the certification mark makes hard, enforceable
	claims about the meaning of the certification and/or provides
	a guarantee for non-performance-- the kind of claim that would
	merit a "false advertising" lawsuit otherwise.  (Good Housekeeping
	provides for a satisfaction guarantee on products bearing
	its seal, for example.)

[* side note:  An amusing trend in the meaningless phrase,
"<place>-quality".  Would I strike it rich selling "Boston-quality water"
or "New York quality road maintenance"?  Yet there exist real outfits like
"Worcester Quality Foods"-- while probably not intended this way, it evokes
disturbing images of food that is, indeed, "Worcester Quality".  (Worcester,
Massachusetts, primarily a college town, isn't particularly known for
excellent cuisine.) ]


>than school vouchers, but it would be a step into that direction.  I believe 
>its practical results would be a catalyst for more "libertarianisation".  
>___________________________________________________________________________  

I think the best path for libertarianism is to tackle the most useless
legislation first, and to show the benefits of individual responsibility
when seemingly-meaningless laws are removed from the books.  It's all
just a matter, mostly, of being both honest and up-front with the
citizens-- of asking the question:  "Given the costs to society, do you
really need the government to perform this particular function FOR you?"

Example:

	Target:  Mandatory dog licensing

	Gadgets:  Lack of benefit; absence of licensing requirements for
		  more significant situations.

	Proposal: Repeal local/state requirements for licensing of canines
		  owned by individuals.  No effect on immunization
		  requirements or stray-animal handling.

	Argument: The paperwork cost to the town of maintaining license
		  and registry information far outweighs any benefit of
		  the legislation.  Cats are not licensed; one does not
		  even need a license to have a baby.


Piff.  No more dog licenses; the person who handled them is given some
other job; the disposable income of the citizens rises a bit.  Next target,
please.

	Target:  Marriage licensing requirements

	Gadgets:  Lack of benefit; separation of church and state;
		  inequity to single individuals, gays, and lesbians.

	Proposal: Repeal local/state requirements requiring marriage
		  licensure; prohibit any governmental agency from
		  requiring or retaining "marital status" information
		  in any form.  No effect on child care responsibilities.
		  Individuals may declare preferences for personal
		  responsibility (in the event of sickness or emergency)
		  to anyone whom they choose.  Tax brackets and deductions
		  influenced by total income and number of dependents
		  per household, not "marital status".

	Argument: There is no reason for the government to concern itself
		  with the private details of one person's love or
		  commitment to another; and certainly no justification
		  for imposing fees or any sort of financial discrimination
		  on one who wishes to pursue this desire.  Marriage is
		  a religious institution and should remain so.  In the
		  past, paperwork requirements and clerical errors have
		  resulted in tremendous injustices to those who were
		  merely attempting to comply with the law.  The present
		  system actually discourages "legal" marriage, and thus
		  the private institution of religious marriage, by
		  negative tax consequences on married couples regardless
		  of living arrangements.  Those who enter, at their
		  choice, into a living arrangement not "sanctioned" by
		  the government, despite any justification or lack of
		  justification, have suffered legal effects which no
		  person in a "free" society should have to tolerate.


More paperwork and another layer of bureaucracy eliminated forever. 
The same procedure could be used to go after the 10-point program.

Next?

--- Russ McFatter [russ@alliant.com]
    std. disclaimers apply.