From J.Levy@adfa.oz.au Fri Dec 17 04:16:24 1993 Received: from sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au by ponyexpress.princeton.edu (5.65c/1.113/newPE) id AA18002; Fri, 17 Dec 1993 04:16:20 -0500 Received: from [131.236.76.118] by sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au (5.67a/1.34) id AA14384; Fri, 17 Dec 1993 20:15:56 +1100 Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1993 20:15:56 +1100 Message-Id: <199312170915.AA14384@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au> To: Bryan Douglas Caplan From: J.Levy@adfa.oz.au (Jacob Levy) X-Sender: j-levy@pop.cc.adfa.oz.au Subject: Re: replies and rejoinders Cc: TCOWEN@gmuvax.gmu.edu Status: RO Bryan, Just a few quick thoughts and then I'm going to sign off for a while-- I'm going on vacation for a month. Cowen may well be right in thinking that "as a percentage of the libertarians in each camp, I doubt if economists have a higher percentage of anarchists;" as I mentioned in my follow-up message, I think at least part of what's going on is an uneasiness on the part of anarchist philosophers and political scientists (like me) in addressing the question in public, an uneasiness not shared by anarchist economists. >I think a general point Levy misses is that **if markets could supply >protection services against a monopoly of force, they could do so now.** >But they can't. You could reply "Well, there isn't a market to begin >with..." and that's certainly true. But that is precisely the point >of the critic of anarchy. Monopolies on force win simply because there >is no effective constraint on them. [emphasis added-- jtl] I may not completely understand this; but it seems to me that it might be impossible to start up protection against a given monopoly, but still be possible to have an appropriate balance of force which prevents monopoly from arising if there isn't one at the outset. If the section marked off by stars is an empirical claim, I'm not competent to dispute it; but if it's a logical or definitional claim then I don't think it's correct. Everything I know about network industries comes from the original article and your reply to it! It's perfectly possible that I missed relevant parts of that discussion; it's far from my area of expertise. My question was not whether there would be some willing to pay to enforce a drug code against others. My question was whether they would be willing to pay more than the victims of such a policy would be willing to pay to defend against it. Other matters, particularly procedural ones, are legitimate worries; but it still seems implausible to me that it would be profitable to go into the victimless crimes prosecution business. It is certainly true that people have non-libertarian values, and that many things which libertarians want to be legal most people don't want going on in their neighborhoods! But-- unlike in a winner-take-all democratic system-- under conditions of anarchy the (for example) would-be drug users can buy protection for themselves *against* the Acme Puritan Cops Company. That's all for now, I guess. By the way, Tyler-- I'm looking forward to seeing _Culture and Capitalism_, and would be grateful if you could let me know when it actually hits the shelves (if it's released stateside, I can special order it from here.) Happy holidays! Talk to you in January. Jacob. -------------------------------------------- Jacob T. Levy Department of Politics, ADFA University College University of New South Wales Canberra ACT 2600 Australia J.Levy@adfa.oz.au ph: +61 (6) 268 8889 fax: +61 (6) 268 8852 "I could tell you of heartbreak, hatred blind, I could tell of crimes that shame mankind, Of brutal wrongs and deeds malign, Of rape and murder, son of mine; But I'll tell instead of brave and fine When lives of black and white entwine, And men in brotherhood combine- This would I tell you, son of mine." - Oodgeroo Noonuccal -------------------------------------------