: Farmer Jones might think "why do I bother feeding this lot?"If he thinks that he can go do something else, someone more willing will do it. His only answer would ever be that he enjoys it, or that he feels the reward of its necessity...
: Thats how interest groups and govts deal with one another, forgetting some human rights violation by one country because some other compromise is 'needed'. Compromise is dangerous. Evil can onlt win whilst compromising with good, ie being sanctioned.
But the point is that that is the politics of interest, and not of different opinions, there is no economic interest involved in this dispute, merely opinion.
: Im sure you would also agree that I doubt private law would lead to armed confrontration.
Ah, but whereas with you and Joel I can point to the way in which armed ressolution can become the viable economic option, and you thus have to 'fall back' on cultural values, I can rely on cultural values from the start: specifically as really the economic motives are your cultural values, and the appeal to value is very vague when they fall apart. Further, in your model there are conflicting interests, whereas in mine, there is difference of opinion, no interest clash, no profit from victory, and both sides share the result.
