|
So far you've given us an assertion, but not an argument that government should provide defence. What is the argument? Actually, this debate started with a plea from a Libertarian (Peter Carswell) to "let the market decide" on defence. My response simply observed that, in view of the free-riding problem, most normal people, as distinct from Libertarians, recognise that "there is a case for government intervention to deal with this market failure". Debate, such as it can be when ABL is involved, ensued from there. The key point though is that I am simply defending the status quo; it is Libertarians who want to change things. Yet for some reason, Mwa apparently believes that it is me who needs to "prove" his case. Sorry guys, the world doesn't work like that. Rather, given the existence of adjustment costs, the onus usually falls on the advocate of change to show that there are good prospects that it would enhance welfare. Thus, it is up to you Libertarian loonies to show that the market is likely to get us closer to optimality than government in relation to defence; not up to me to prove that it wouldn't. Richard Smart
| 
