|
Adjustment costs are just part of the cost-benefit analysis, so they do not influence the null hypothesis. Perhaps there will be a matter of hysteresis that increases the argument for government after the program has been introduced... but I still think it is necessary for the advocate of violence to defend their policy. The null hypothesis comes from a non-consequentialist consideration. If you think only consequences matter (ie implying moral equality between means, and being concerned only with ends) then you would not have the null hypothesis being freedom and non-intervention. If that is your position, then I disagree -- but I will leave that debate for a different day. The fact that the government is either violent or irrelevant has never (as far as I know) been denied by anyone of any political philosophy. It is true by definition. The government is the institution with a geographical monopoly on coercion. It is the use of violence/coercion that makes it different from any organisation that you or I could start. You have never shown that freedom v government doesn't hold. You can't show that because the dichotomy between freedom and government is true by definition. What you are probably thinking of is a dichotomy between utility and government. But nobody (at least, not me) is claiming that.
| 
