I wrote at the bottom of another post:
General rhetorical question: indeed why have governments at all?
and Kent Crispin parried: : General rhetorical answer: Because people are the way they are. Kent you seem to harbor the belief that government monopoly is a good thing, or at least that government is somehow an unavoidable necessary evil. I doubt I'll convince you otherwise, but in case there are other people reading who still think governments the best way of doing anything, I'll try to explain why I think government monopoly is a bad thing. Are you opposed to free markets? Government holds a number of monopolies. These monopolies are not efficient. They result in resource wastage on a mind boggling scale. The USG has pretty much bankrupt your country, the US national debt being I understand at a level where US citizens collectively do not have the resources to pay it off. If a privately or publicly held company got to that stage the receivers would be sent in. The success that a country does enjoy is pretty much proportional to the degree of market freedom. Luckily for us our governments have left a bit of freedom in markets, or we would have food shortages, and rationing. In economies with extremely low amounts of market freedom, the readily observable inefficiency demonstrates my point. (eg Former Soviet Union communist economy). Governments tend to grow, and soak up larger tax percentages, and encroach into more aspects of life which were previously a question of free choice, or were previously purely market driven. The reason for this growth is due to the government as an entity unconciously promoting itself as an organism. A great huge cancerous growth which has us by the jugular. The reason governments as businesses can get away with their abysmal performance is because they have a near complete monopoly. A good start would be a choice in government, to generate some competition. So you can buy membership in a protection racket, hire the services of a private security firm, or buy insurance from an insurance group because of its benefits package, or go elsewhere if the offering sucks. You choose on an individual basis what package best suits you, and you choose the service providers who you consider as the best value for money. eg. I can go buy into Uncle Enzo's pizza delivery and protection racket because the protection is 5000% better value for money than the Feds deal. I can pick and choose the services I want to produce a mix which satisfies me. Double efficiency, people don't have services provided for them which they actively don't want, and I can buy services which the government attempts to prevent the market from providing, so my requirements are better met. As well as the increased efficiency obtained in provision of services which governments are currently holding monopolies on, the reduced taxation and regularatory burdens put on the economy would cause a boom. And your argument is? That people want government? Fine, let those sheeple that do want something even more oppresive and intrusive than the current government buy into whatever form of oppresive cult they want. Perhaps a sheltered perimeter gaurded enclave where all media is censored, there is capital punishment for spitting on the side walk, evil thoughts results in public flogging, etc, and where the taxation rate is 90% would suit them to a T. Great! We need some evolutionary pressures anyway. So which mix would you choose Kent? Or are you arguing that there are lots of stupid people, and that you are happy to let their ill-informed choices, and their willingness to go with the bankrupt corrupt status quo fuck your life up? Why should there be blanket decisions made and forced upon you as an individual. Free choice makes for much more efficiency in terms of economics, and in terms of individuals happiness. Here's a reading list for those interested in disbanding government and replacing it with services purchased on the free market: "Snow Crash", Neal Stephenson Snow Crash is a sci-fi novel giving a depiction depictions of life with choice in services, private law enforcement services competing with Uncle Enzo's pizza mafia. "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", Heinlein The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is a sci-fi novel giving a depiction of a wild-west like legal system. There are no laws, excepting individual responsibility. "Machinery of Freedom" 2nd Ed, David Friedman Machinery of Freedom talks about free market methods to provide services that have traditionally been provided by government. "The Wealth of Nations", Adam Smith The Wealth of Nations is an interesting book despite being published in 1776. Didn't have his judgement clouded by this namby-pamby socialist/communist junk. Pure capitalism, examining why the free market is efficient. "The Road to Serfdom", Hayek Road to Serfdom explains in Hayeks view that socialism is a slippery slope leading to economic decline and communism. In context of Nazism after second world war. He makes the case that Socialism the root of much evil. Adam -- Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/ print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`