Thank you, Zev, for your thoughtful contribution to this discussion.
Even if, as you say, insurance companies become governments, the public would
at least have access to competing insurance companies. Companies with money on
the line are likely to arrive at better tradeoffs than bureaucrats with nothing
to lose.
If we had truly competing governments, government might not be as bad as is it.
The united states were once competing governments. (Before Lincoln, the united
states were referred to in the plural; after, in the singular.)
--- On Mon, 4/19/10, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:
The big problem, however, is how to judge when you are recklessly
endangering others, and when you are simply taking a rational risk.
Who determines this, and by what standards. In the statist model of
government it's simple: the government decides, and everyone has to
obey its rules, or else. The infallible wisdom of dedicated public
servants who were hired by the wise statesmen elected by the majority
will always hit on the best balance between risk and liberty, set the
most rational standards, and enforce them with scrupulous impartiality.
You can stop laughing now.
The libertarian approach starts with pointing out how absurd the statist
one is. The problem is that it doesn't go much further. What *is* the
solution? *Someone* has to set standards, and there will always be
people unhappy with them, who will have to be forced -- yes, by force of
arms, if necessary -- to abstain from taking what they think is a
perfectly acceptable risk. In some versions of anarcho-capitalism, the
standards are set by agreement between the insurance companies, and
they then enforce them not only on their own clients but also on everyone
else, for their clients' safety. Nozick points out that this turns them
into a government.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
