From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Yet more on PPL systems
Organization: Lehman Brothers
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 21:26:24 GMT

galt%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.151210.13226@athena.mit.edu>, danny@athena.mit.edu (Daniel A Lagattuta) writes:
>>In article <1a7pefINNs0s@uwm.edu>, glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Neuromancer ) writes:
>>	Yes, but it is easier to defend oneself against an individual or a
>>company than an army.
>
>Unless the "company" is an army.  It may be true that you have a better
>chance defending yourself against thugs hired by Donald Trump than 
>against the U.S. Army.  But I would be more afraid of Donald Trump's
>army than the U.S. Army.  If I criticize the government, there are
>laws to prevent the Army from assassinating me, and these laws are
>usually followed.  What would prevent Trump's thugs from killing me
>if I was about to expose some kind of personal scandal? 

Anyone who thinks that there are laws that restrain government armies
is invited to take a trip down to South America. I've got friends who
can take you on tours of the unmarked graves.

Yes, FOR THE MOMENT, the US Army is restrained; we in the US are
spoiled as its been 120 years since we've had armies killing civilians
within our borders under government orders. However, in general, the
bulk of Armies are not. Even where laws exist around the world that
prevent people from having their rights abused, they are generally
ignored by the local police and military.

On the other hand, in a propertarian anarchist society, Donald Trump
could indeed hire thugs to beat you up. However, Donald Trump could
also do that in our current system. In both cases, you depend on a
police force and judicial system for your protection. I merely propose
that that police force and judicial system be privatized. As I've
noted in other articles, extremely powerful incentives exist for
wealthy people who might try to use their money to harm others not to
do so in such a system -- a state of outlawry would stop such a person
dead in their tracks.

>>	Power in a free market is decentralized.  There will be no capitalist
>>conspiracy that will run everything.  There will be many people minding their
>>own business trying to get rich.  And only by producing valuable goods and
>>services, and not by buying favors from politicians.  There will be no
>>government so no one could control it.  Perhaps you should define government.
>
>It may be decentralized, but at least in a democracy I have some control
>over George Bush's power.  In a pure free market, the poor have no control
>at all. 

On the contrary.

I, for one, didn't vote for George Bush. I have no control over the
man whatsoever. I can go up to him, tell him off, and he'll just
laugh. On the other hand, a poor person in a propertarian anarchist
system can hire a different police company to protect them if they
don't like the security services their current company provides, or
they can join a local security cooperative -- in either case, they are
able, directly, to fire the police themselves and choose new security
arrangements.

Imagine if everyone got together and decided every year which car
company everyone would be forced to buy from. We'd sit down and vote
on who would make the cars this year. Silly, eh? Thats what we do,
however, with governments. All the desirable features of government
are a set of services, which may be unbundled and provided in the
marketplace. By providing things like postal service, roadways, or
judicial services in the marketplace, competition can drive bad
providers out of buisness and assure that good providers are charging
the lowest possible cost.
--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
		  Just say "NO!" to death and taxes.
			 Extropian and Proud.