From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Government meddling...
Summary: Get a grip and don't overstate your case.
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:39:07 GMT
Organization: ISC-Bunker Ramo, An Olivetti Company

In article <2003@usna.NAVY.MIL> potter@attila.usna.navy.mil (Mr. Jeff Potter (CADIG  STAFF)) writes:
>
>  In response to Mr. Romano....
>
>     The Libertarians have never claimed that greed, corruption or deceipt
> will magically cease to exist. These are human flaws that result from
> culture and human nature. Having government pass laws to protect people
> has never solved anything either. 
> Have prostitution laws ended solicitation?
> Have anti-drug laws ended marijuana use? Have anti-fraud laws ended fraud?

To argue that "having government pass laws to protect people has never
solved anything..." is patently absurd.  Indeed, laws do not _eliminate_
practices they prohibit.  Depending upon public support, enforcement, 
and opportunity, however, legal prohibitions clearly can reduce 
the frequency and/or severity of proscribed behavior.  I don't think
you'd want to argue this point.

> The consumer must always be aware and cautious that is a fact of life. 

No argument.  The question is whether (a) consumer protection reduces the
initial risk of fraud or injury compared to a state in which such laws
do not exist; and (b) what mechanisms for redress exist in a conventional
versus a libertarian society.

On the first point, I'd argue that evidence clearly indicates that 
market forces alone are not as effective as legal regulation in reducing
the risk of fraud and injury.  To argue otherwise is to ignore the 
conditions that prompted passage of consumer protection legislation
in the first place.

On the second point, libertarians typically argue that legal redress
in the form of a suit for fraud or injury would be used in place of
current regulatory prohibitions backed up by the right to sue.  Frankly,
I find this completely "reactionary" (to use your words) approach to
be insufficient, costly, and just a pain in the ass.  Why libertarians
would prefer a system that eliminates legislation in favor of litigation
has always been a mystery to me.

> The problem is the more power the government is given to 'protect' me 
> the more power government has over all aspects of my life. 

Cliche.  Either trivially true (e.g. taxes paid for protection reduce
my discretionary income) or an assertion without supporting evidence.

> I was never given a choice
> as to whether I approve of drug use, or prostitution. Yet my taxes pay to
> 'protect' me from these things.

That, my friend, is the nature of collective decision making for public
goods.  In a democratic society majorities (usually representative
majorities) make decisions binding on both those who favor and those who
oppose the decision. Markets work differently.  They allow individual 
consumers to determine what they pay for.  As it happens I view laws 
prohibiting drug use and prostitution as misguided.  That does not mean,
however, that the method of making the decision is illegitimate.

>   Government forces are strictly reactionary. If someone breaks into my home
> and murders my wife - the police can only react after my wife is dead! Now
> what help is that? It is my responsibilty to protect myself and family
> before the fact, perhaps preventing a murder. The government law against
> murder does not protect me! Some one is jailed but my wife would still be
> dead! Government intervention is coercive and solves nothing!

In fact, this is clearly untrue if we assume that the risk of having your
house broken into is reduced by the existence of a legal prohibition.
Furthermore, the effort you can expect to exert to protect your family
is considerably less in the case where legal prohibitions exist and 
fewer break-ins are attempted.  Thus, the law is not reactionary, it 
is proactive.  And the law against murder
does protect you against those who would murder you if it did not 
exist.

Frankly, though I believe libertarian theory to be deeply flawed, you 
haven't even given it a fighting chance with such an overblown and
illogical tirade.  Try thinking (and perhaps reading) a bit before
you claim to defend a philosophical position you clearly do not
understand.
--
Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   
   ISC-Bunker Ramo Corp.  ms LL2-2B    |  UUCP:    ...!uunet!isc-br!thor!steveh
   E. 22425 Appleway                   |  Ma Bell: 509 927-7034
   Spokane, WA  99220-4008             |  FAX: 509 927-2499
Newsgroups: sci.econ