most of what govts do can be done by business, and done better (Re: How to solve the tax problem w/o anarchy or force)

[Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>]

Vladimir Nuri writes:
> the distinction between govt and business is sometimes an
> arbitrary one. for example govt agencies typically contract
> with private companies to perform govt services. a massive
> example of this is the defense industry. what I would tend
> to propose is a system where this is augmented and finetuned
> to the point the govt become a very efficient sorting mechanism
> for channeling money to businesses that are the most efficient.

Even when government does sub-contract, the inefficiency is usually I
think pretty horrendous by industry standards:

1. the subcontracted work is probably not at all desired by the
customers (us the tax payers)

2. the subcontracted work is probably poorly specified, so the
contractor does work which inefficiently works towards the customers
requirements

3. because governments are monopolies they have no incentive to choose
the best value for money contract, or to try hard to obtain reasonable
contracts

4. because governments employees are often corrupt kick backs are
taken by corrupt employees to accept other than the best value for
money contractor

> AB, I disagree that people would opt out of virtually all govt
> services. bzzzzzzzt. think of things like trash collection etc.
> I do believe the vast majority of things the govt does would
> tend to stay there even if people had a choice.

Everything that can easily be privatised would either be privatised
(because it would be so much cheaper without all the corruption,
ineptitude and lack of efficiency insentive), or for the first time
some competition would be introduced into government and they would
actually compete on an even basis.  Either outcome is preferable over
the current situation, and a direct result of allowing competition.

> the big libertarian question is, as you raise it: should people
> have to pay for things they don't want. 

absolutely not.

> well consider things like roads, 

if you don't drive you shouldn't have to pay for them.

> police

if you have hired a private security firm for protection you shouldn't
have to pay for the police (who as others have noted mostly do
unproductive things, and prosecute victimless crimes, and generally
harrass people).

> or fire protection

well if your house burns down, and you haven't taken fire insurance
with a fire fighting service, and can't afford the fee, well that's
tough luck.

> or the court system.  

I don't want to subsidize arbitration services locking away people for
victimless crimes, so I will subscribe to arbitration services which
don't do this.  See "Machinery of Freedom" by David Friedman for a
plausible frame work for choice in arbitration services and intra
service negotations.

Note quite a lot of business use independent arbitration services,
because it is much cheaper, fairer, and more predictable than the
government monopoly court system.

> what if you don't pay, but then dial 911 anyway?

they ask for your to authenticate your chaumian credential insurancce
contract.  if you can't do that they don't come, same as any other
0800-RENTACOP service.

> or you dial 911 and they ask for your credit card first? <g>

yup, exactly.

> it really does seem to me like there is a legitimate role for a
> certain amount of money to be collected for govt service. 

I think you can privatise everything.  Things which are called natural
monopolies could be managed by trade organisations or companies
bidding for management getting efficiency related fees.  Why should
politicians and the rest manage roads, why not a company.

> imho it is far, far less than whatis being collected today. 

zero I think woudl be best, or very very close.

> if taxes were 5-10% people wouldn't give as much a damn about the
> govt and how it worked. 

What all could you spend 5-10% of GNP on that couldn't be privatised?
Sounds like an awful lot of legalised theft yet!

> libertarians tend to be awfully realistic some times. who pays for
> roads when everyone uses them? 

don't pay not allowed to use.  not everyone uses them to drive cars
on.

Adam