Re: A prediction about the Presidential campaign
- From: David Friedman <ddfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 20:44:07 -0800
In article <5tifq3dl136q7jefkibtt3hdhd9satelgq@xxxxxxx>,
Tim Merrigan <tppm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Our difference than is the definition of government. IMHO If a street
gang takes over a neighborhood it becomes a, and often the, de facto
government of that neighborhood.
By mine, it becomes the government at the point when the people in the
neighborhood start accepting its exactions as normal, rather than as
things to be accepted only when the cost of an act of resistance is very
high.
By your definition, is a mugger a government? More generally, can you
state your definition?
Using my definition your, and
Keith's,"organized arrangements by which people protect their rights"
are de facto governments.
Independent of what the arrangement is?
Consider a bare bones anarchist arrangement--the equivalent of the early
part of an econ text, where all production, consumption and trade is by
individuals.
Not very dense population, reasonably consistent norms. If I think you
stole my cow, I could go fetch it back, or attack you, but that's risky,
both because you might resist and because my neighbors might conclude I
was a dangerous sort and alter their behavior accordingly. So it's
almost always in my interest, instead, to publicly accuse you and demand
that you agree to arbitration by someone whom practically everyone
regards as honest and competent.
If you don't agree, my neighbors conclude that you stole my cow, so when
I take it back they don't reach negative conclusions about me and may
even help. If you do agree, the arbitrator rules in my favor, and you
don't return the cow, the same thing happens. If the arbitrator rules in
my favor and you return the cow, no problem. If he rules against me, I
pay you the amount he says I owe you for your time and trouble.
I think I have described a pattern of behavior that could under some
circumstances be stable and result in cows rarely being stolen. The
arbitrator doesn't have any special rights or position and may not be
chosen next time such a problem arises. I don't have any special rights
or any monopoly on the use of force.
I'm not interested in stories about how such a system might go bad, be
taken over by warlords, or whatever, unless you think you have a proof
that such outcomes have to happen under all circumstances. My question
is whether there is a government, and if so what it is? If not, isn't
this a counterexample to your claim above?
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A prediction about the Presidential campaign
- From: Will
- Re: A prediction about the Presidential campaign
- From: Will
- Re: A prediction about the Presidential campaign
- From: Tim Merrigan
- Re: A prediction about the Presidential campaign
- References:
- Re: A prediction about the Presidential campaign
- From: Keith F. Lynch
- Re: A prediction about the Presidential campaign
- From: Justin Fang
- Re: A prediction about the Presidential campaign
- From: Tim Merrigan
- Re: A prediction about the Presidential campaign
- From: David Friedman
- Re: A prediction about the Presidential campaign
- From: Tim Merrigan
- Re: A prediction about the Presidential campaign
- Prev by Date: Two Articles about What Brits Know (or Don't)...
- Next by Date: Re: Phisher tricks other phishers into doing the dirty work for him...
- Previous by thread: Re: A prediction about the Presidential campaign
- Next by thread: Re: A prediction about the Presidential campaign
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|