From: Michael S. Lorrey (retroman@together.net)
Date: Sun Dec 20 1998 - 15:04:51 MST
"Peter C. McCluskey" wrote:
> daniel.fabulich@yale.edu (Dan Fabulich) writes:
> >At that point, there is a great deal of incentive for everyone in a given
> >area to be operating under one and only one PPF. After all, I can think of
> >only two ways to resolve conflict between two PPFs: merging into one PPF,
> >(which, by definition, is what would happen if they agreed to mutual
> >arbitration,) or combat.
>
> If you look at how existing countries handle the existence of other
> countries (e.g. extradition treaties), you will see that there are more
> than two ways to resolve conflicts, and that there exist conditions under
> which the multiple governments are a stable phenomenon.
> The only remaining question is whether there is something important about
> geographic segregation of governments that is essential to this stable
> coexistence.
Well, we have competing layers of government here, with local, state and federal
organizations which frequently trip over each other's jurisdictions, or even
have competing jurisdictions. There does tend to be rivalry, which can be good
at times and bad at others, but it does tend to make the rivals more responsive
to the consumer.
Then there is the insurance industry. Much of what many socialist nations
automatically assume to be natural government functions are administered by
private insurance companies here. Monopolization tends to occur more frequently
here only when aided by government tax, investment, and tort laws. A lack of
such laws tends to increase competition here, since essentially anyone with
money can become an insurance company. Insurance is basically a matter of
formalized betting on life outcomes. Companies with sufficient assets and
minimal potential liabilities can insure themselves. Individuals can also do
this, or as Vernor Vinge has called it, to "go armadillo", in some
jurisdictions, and do so at a profit. However many states here now have what are
called "financial responsibility" laws, mainly to do with automotive insurance.
Fortunately things here are pretty loose in New Hampshire. So long as you have
not had a car accident exceeding x dollars in damage or cause x dollars in
medical injuries to the other parties, or get stopped for driving DWI, you are
not required by law to have insurance. Your bank can mandate that you insure
your vehicle if you have financed the vehicle through them, but that is about
it.
The tenets of libertarian and AC theory hold that more and more, and potentially
all, functions currently in the government domain can be privatized in a
competitive market of insurance policies, to the benefit of consumers. If we
look at markets like automotive insurance, we see that those states where
consolidation of providers occurs happens where laws benefit such conditions.
Lack of regulation benefits competition.
Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:50:04 MST