Bill Brown wrote:
>> My proposal was designed to set aside your "it won't work" objections
>> and see if a core of paternalism remained. Your concern that people
>> won't choose to buy as much poverty insurance, police protection, or
>> bills of rights as you think they aught seems exactly such a core of
>> paternalism. Even when it seems workable, you don't want to let other
>> folks make these choices for themselves.
>My concern is not that people will voluntarily choose to forego these
>services, but rather that they will not be able to obtain them. You can
>only buy what someone is willing to sell. ...
>Your proposal would address some of the problems with PPAs by ensuring that
>they do not simply band together and set up some kind of oligarchy. It did
>not address the more subtle ways that PPAs can use force to gain
>competitive advantages, or the other less obvious problems with such
>schemes. These problems are important, because they can easily lead to
>abuses just as bad as the government atrocities we are trying to avoid.
What subtle schemes/problems do you have in mind that would not be handled by my proposed "PPA anti-trust law"? (Shemes that can make sense of your concern that no bill of rights is guarenteed, or that the poor won't buy enough police.)
firstname.lastname@example.org http://hanson.berkeley.edu/ RWJF Health Policy Scholar FAX: 510-643-8614140 Warren Hall, UC Berkeley, CA 94720-7360 510-643-1884 after 8/99: Assist. Prof. Economics, George Mason Univ.