Lowi observes government is the institutionalization of conquest that begins with winning a modicum of consent of the people to be governed by an external authority, creating a virtual parent so to speak. He shows participation to be the key to such consent, and voting in the manner of nose counting to be the cheapest and easiest form of participation. Even if only a minority turn out to vote on cue, that is apparently sufficient to commit the vast majority to being governed by the state. This result is apparently ordained by a sense of fair play ingrained in human consciousness. Most are willing to go along to get along.

Lowi admits that people must be substantially self-governing before they can be successfully governed by political means. From this viewpoint, political government is superfluous. Whereas self-governing people are out to get what they want and die trying, politically governed people are persuaded to want what they get and resign themselves to their fate.

Lowi points out that governments regularly fail, but they never fail to coerce. Once voters legitimize the government’s use of violence, fear of government becomes the tool of compliance. Elections are perfunctory thereafter.

I disagree with my brother on many things but not about Leviathan, or that politics is a social disease. He believes politics is a necessary evil that must be tolerated considering the alternatives. I believe politics, which is habitual, must be quarantined by shunning it in favor of myriad voluntary alternatives. Hopefully thereby, politics will go into indefinite remission. I can afford my belief because I can see man has an abundance of non-political alternatives in governance that come forth from the market in the absence of political suppression.

I apologize for not being able to recall the name of the town that was given as an example, but, in addition to the fact that only four (4) town employees were needed, they were able to reduce by 40% the cost of services provided to the town residents.

HMMMM, now I wonder how long it will take before the costs of government regulation of that service industry reduces the 40% savings into chump change . . .

“Industry benefits, public looses” is indeed only a first stage (and sometimes not even that) view of regulation – although this view is miles ahead of the absurd view spread by the mainstream media and academia that the public actually benefits from regulation.

In the end, everyone (apart from the government) looses by regulation – including even the business vested interests.