Andy Bradford wrote:
There would be a difference. First, the associations would be mutually beneficial and based on profit/loss. It wouldn't even have the same structure as government because we wouldn't be governed at all, instead we would contract for things which we need, and if we find that one service doesn't suit our needs we would could easily vote with our wallets as consumers often do.
Except there's a problem: This free-market/anarchy idea doesn't solve the public goods problem efficiently enough to support real life. For example: who defends a particular geographic area against invasion? If companies A and B both set up a military defense, who do I pay for the service? Will company A allow invading forces to attack my house if I am a company B customer, while my neighbor, a company A customer, is protected? Who gets to decide when someone should go to jail? Are their competing jail companies? Who pays them, the prisoners? Who decides property boundaries? Does each citizen have to defend his/her property by force?
Anarchy is for the birds. And textbooks. This thread is getting old. --Dave .-----------------------------------. | This has been a P.L.U.G. mailing. | | Don't Fear the Penguin. | | IRC: #utah at irc.freenode.net | `-----------------------------------'
