From: "Perry E. Metzger" <pmetzger@lehman.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 20:02:39 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Anon Bank Accounts / Imminent Demise of US Govt (Conclusion)
In-Reply-To: <9310210229.AA14636@dink.foretune.co.jp>
Message-ID: <9310210258.AA16901@snark.lehman.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



This is not cypherpunks related. I feel obligated to reply one last
time, but I won't discuss it further here -- I will gladly discuss it
with people in private email.

Robert J Woodhead says:
> 
> Stanton McCandlish asks:
> > If the govt is oppressive at all, why support this?
> 
> Perry E. Metzger posits:
> > Who needs to break it [government]? At the current rate,
> > it will have destroyed itself within a decade.
> 
> My answer is simple: the alternative is worse.  Anarchy is
> usually very uncomfortable, unless you have more guns and
> money than anyone else.

I would quite strongly disagree -- the evidence I have is that anarchy
can be far more comfortable for individuals of limited resources than
our current society. Don't believe the propaganda -- just because you
haven't seen certain functions you associate with government run by
the private sector does not mean they cannot be so run.

> Also, the current US government is, at it's core, based on sound
> principles.

I would strongly disagree. Democracy is a poor way to run things.
Imagine if people had to vote on what computer to use and there was
only one kind of computer available in a given year. Far better, I
think, to allow people the freedom to choose what they want in a free
market. Voting isn't, in and of itself, a good way to make decisions
-- it averages the intelligence of the voters rather than summing
their intelligence.

> If it crashes and burns, what is it more likely to be replaced by?

That I do not know. I can tell you what it COULD be replaced with, but
it is hard to know what it would actually be replaced with. Given the
pathetic state of education in our country, I'd say that a populist
dictatorship is a real possibility.

> Whether you like it or not, you live in and are supported by
> a society, in a myriad of ways.  The maintenance and improve-
> ment of that society, and the betterment of your fellow human
> beings, ought to be a primary goal.  It is for me.

I am not supported by society, and the betterment of Perry Metzger,
not my fellow man, is my primary goal. However, I would quite strongly
argue that if you truly want to better your fellow man, redistributive
methods like paying for services via taxation almost inevitably lead
to worse conditions for those with limited resources than they would
otherwise experience, which is exactly the opposite of wwhat most
redistributionists intend. All around the world, you can see example
upon example of countries, even democratic ones like India, that are
grotesquely impoverished because of the attempt to make things "fair"
and to "encourage development" and have an "industrial policy" and all
the other stigmata of statism. You can also find countries that are
developing nicely and have few regulations and low taxation (in spite
of claims by members of the media who never visit the places -- I'm
perpetually amused by reports in the media about how South Korea shows
why we need an industrial policy, when its a country that doesn't even
have welfare, social security or unemployment benefits and until
recently was known for the ease with which even the common man could
commit tax fraud. As for their "industrial policy", its rather weak
and can be argued to have held them back in the few areas where it is
strong. But I digress)

Perry

ps Repeating: This is not cypherpunks related. I feel obligated to
reply one last time, but I won't discuss it further here -- I will
gladly discuss it with people in private email.