From: tyadav@athena.mit.edu (T.Y.)
Subject: Re: Funding the govt.....(Re: Just a few...
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:23:32 GMT

================================================
 
 What follows, is my attempt to get my own thoughts straightened out.
 The rightful govt role:
 [1] protection from criminals
 [2] protection from invaders
 [3] run the law courts to settle disputes

 All this needs funds. "No free lunch" - as economists like to say.
 The fundamental question is, then, what is the fair and practical way to
 fund these activities. (I want to use the term "practical" there because I
 want the "cost of obtaining funds" to be as low as possible.)

 Having stated my premise, here is the extension of debate:

 baruch@nynexst.com writes:
>
>Sure.  Suppose I want to sell my land, along with it's protection.  If person
>A doesn't want to buy the protection part of it, then I am free to deny him
>the sale (since what am I going to do with protection for the land and no
>land?).
>
>If person B does buy the land with protection, and then throws away the
>protection, he can later sell it without that protection.  He can choose
>to sell it at whatever price he wants -- he could, for example, include
>his cost of buying the original protection (even though it doesn't exist
>at the time of B's sale).
>--Rob

 First of, let me clarify the term "protection" here. I do not
 mean "protection" as is sometimes implied by insurance. Govt functions
 are different from the insurance functions.
 Govt is proactive (it should - keep the criminals off the streets; protect the
 victim while the crime is taking place; assist victim after the crime -
 where crime has been defined by objective laws).
 Insurance is reactive. Hurricane Bob comes in; can't do much. Refund for the
 unavoidable risk planning.

 With this distinction made, we can now list the source of 
 "protection costs" (or call this govt functions costs). These
 are incurred at distances far away from my property.
 For example, I would like to have roads/freeway free of drunken drivers.
 I can protect my porsche from theft with a gun. But, I do not want to
 fix machine gun on the car hood to take care of drunken drivers.......
 After all, in the spirit of natural justice, I presume innocence till 
 proven otherwise. So, the car and me need round the clock govt functions
 to keep streets pleasant to drive. In other words, my property is "not just
 the porsche," the property really is the "ability to race freely without
 worry on land" - the car is just the means; it ain't the happiness.
 Don't I therefore, expect more from the govt - because the pleasure I derive
 from the expensive property is more than say, someone content with a Yugo.

 Take another example: A ranch on the border. Yes, with a gun I can take care
 of loss on site. But, then what about the other govt functions that conserve
 the property and its "real value - tranquility and solitude and clean air
 and clean water" to me. The functions include invasion protection etc. The
 costs associated seem more fairly distributed if linked to the costs of
 the base property. Don't they? Am I missing something, hmmmmm!!

 The questions: 
 [1] How do you decide who pays how much for the govt functions that
     exist and affects everyone's happiness: keeping criminals off; keeping
     invaders out; keeping the courts productive.
 [2] In what form do you efficiently collect these payments. 

T.Y.			
----
tyadav@athena.mit.edu

ps: Is anyone saving the discussions here? For making FAQ few months from now.