From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rms2g@virginia.edu)
Date: Fri Aug 09 2002 - 18:51:26 MDT
Charlie Stross wrote:
Let's
bear in mind that provision of security is labour-intensive, and almost
by definition out of the financial reach of the poor. Let's also bear in
mind that a level economic playing field requires, as a starting point,
that property rights are equally enforcable. This is a problem, isn't
it?
### Point 1 in my government function list - protection from ELEMENTS. Large
corporations, very wealthy landowners can distort the legal system to their
advantage. If this is prevented, property rights of the poorest will be
safe. Security is actually very cheap to provide - the poor could organize
neighborhood watches, support their security agency and get discounts. As I
said, once you take care of the big bad guys, the citizens can cheaply deal
with the small fry.
--------
Ah, at this point I have to confess to being a liberal but not a
statist. I'm in favour of minimizing restrictions where possible. However,
pollution is a big headache. It's even bigger when you think in terms of
unidentified -- new -- pollutants. For example, dioxins weren't understood
to be harmful pollutants until the 1970's; should people be exempt from
liability for stuff they dump before (as opposed to after) it's identified
as harmful?
### Of course they should - how can you even suggest punishing somebody for
unknowingly, unintentionally, and in a totally unpredictable manner harming
others? Should you be punished for leaving your car exactly in the path of a
biker's head who stumbles on a rock? Should you pay for his broken neck?
---------
> I would
> think the current state approach is wrong: There is no need for state law,
> except insofar as necessary for enforcement of contracts and protection of
> property (including human bodies). If any individuals are measurably
harmed
> as a result of e.g air pollution, they can expect restitution. If the cost
> of such restitution exceeds the gain from activities associated with
> polluting the air, polluters will adjust their behavior without specific
> state intervention.
How do they get restitution, in your world? In the world I live in,
lawyers cost money and aren't guaranteed to gain restitution. They cost
so much money, in fact, that most ordinary people can't afford them --
and getting a bunch of ordinary folks to pool their resources is much,
much harder than herding cats. Worse, there are boundary problems with
jurisdiction. A polluter in country A may be emitting fumes that damage
people in country B, but due to legal incompatibilities their liability
may stop at the border.
### Lawyers are expensive because of monopolies limiting access to the
profession (the bar associations), courts are slow because they are not
private, and this does make it more expensive. Even so, if I am hurt, I can
easily obtain all the legal help I need. If my loss is real, and the
responsible party well-defined, any personal injury lawyer (a private,
greedy individual, much more helpful than a bureaucrat charged with
"protecting" my interests) will be happy to represent me, for a cut of the
award. No need for state regulation.
Polluters from other countries are ELEMENTS. See function #1.
-----------
Plus, it's better to prevent damage in advance than to suffer the effects
of the damage. I'd rather have clean lungs than several kilobucks of
compensation and emphysema following a long court case, if you follow me.
### The mere existence of scientific evidence showing that a chemical is a
dangerous pollutant is sufficient to induce the industrialist to try to
avoid its release. Those who wait until the lawsuit, go bankrupt. You really
do not need the state for prevention, except as to provide scientific info
and forced disclosure of information (see functions 2 a, b, c).
--------
>
> ### What do you mean? Why would you like to regulate gas companies?
Because there's only one gas distribution network (the pipes in the ground),
and the usual monopoly problems apply. An unregulated gas supplier can
become
a regional monopoly and hike prices until consumers scream -- but short of
laying a whole load of new pipes there's no way to make an end run around
the methane monopoly.
### End run - easily. A homeowner's association can invite a competitor
(except where your state forbids it), and have another set of pipes laid.
The "monopolist" will lose his investment once, and be nicer next time. The
only problem is when the gas company is so huge it covers the whole
country - but for that see function 1, the ELEMENTS.
------
> Getting controversial: insurance, and particularly health insurance, is
> a common good.
>
> ### I have the impression you are using the term "common good" in a
> different meaning than above. Please explain.
Epidemiology doesn't respect your wallet. If we have a reservoir of
poor, homeless people who can't afford medicines, or who can only
afford antibiotics intermittently, we have a breeding ground for
antibiotic-resistant bugs. If we have a reservoir of people who can't
afford or don't believe in vaccination, we have a reservoir population
for polio, smallpox, or the like. That's for starters.
### Well, if they can't get antibiotics, they won't have resistant bacteria.
If adults are not vaccinated against polio, it's their problem. If they deny
this to their children, see function 3.
-------
The second aspect is that uninsured people are in some cases free riders
on the insured. Consider the prospect of being in a car crash where the
other party is (a) poor and (b) uninsured. Sure you can sue him until
you're blue in the face, but you won't get a bent penny, and your car
is still broken (if not your bones). The more people who are insured, the
wider the burden of insurance is spread.
### On a private road I can sue the owner, for letting an uninsured person
hurt me. Next time he won't let any uninsured on his road. Obviously, you
want to have everybody insured, but the solution is not to throw money at
the poor.
--------
Maybe I'd be more accurate saying that even if we are insured, living in
proximity to people who aren't covered is a problem.
### Private property means you can keep them at a suitable distance.
-------
Sorry. I live in a country with a national health system. There's a
shortage of liver transplants, such that some thousands of people a year
die for want of one. The only triage issues I'm aware of is that people
who try to commit suicide by o/d'ing on paracetamol (aka acetaminophen)
and destroy their liver tend to come in lower down the waiting list than
people who didn't: the shortage is on the supply side (not enough donors).
### I lived in a country with a national health system, and even worked
there. Not an experience I'd like to repeat.
-------
> Somebody who could pay for
> insurance but instead has a child or buys a motorbike, should not receive
> assistance, since their actions prove they do not care about their life.
Er, I think you're conflating two situations here. Having a child may be
involuntary, to the extent that it may be unwelcome and unplanned but
the parents have ethical qualms over abortion. The motorbike -- you're
assuming it's a luxury, aren't you? There are large parts of the world where
motorbikes are primary transportation, because only the rich can aspire to
a car.
### Having a child is always voluntary. If you know you don't want to abort,
use good contraception, or don't have sex. Of course a motorbike is a
luxury. You can walk, or pay for a jitney. Your comment is exemplary of the
danger that comes with arbitrary definitions of what is "necessary", "needed
for a dignified existence", etc. - there is never an end to the demands that
the non-productives make on their hosts, the working people like me.
--------
Am I right in thinking that what you _really_ mean is that people should
show some intention of paying for their own healthcare before they receive
any?
### Exactly! Say, you make $ 10k/year. You need 7 k for food, vitamins, a
bunk bed in a hostel, clothing from a secondhand store, access to
educational opportunities (you want to get out of this dead-end job). Good
health insurance, with disability coverage, will cost you about 5k. If you
pay 1k, I will pay to make it 2k. You get cheap insurance, but get to keep
some cash, for lipstick, or candy. You pay 3k, I make it 5 k - you get
health care worth a king, because you deserve it. You proved your moral
fiber, your wish to live and your honesty (you are not falsely whining how
poor you are) - it is my duty to help you. You don't want to pay for health
insurance, and you get in trouble? Well, you asked for it.
Honest, isn't it?
-----
Back when the pension system was first introduced by Otto von Bismarck,
the main issue was elderly people who were no longer physically able to
work -- too old, too slow, too out of date. That problem is *not* going
to go away (although I think retirement at 65 now looks rather bizarre --
if the retirement age had risen in line with life expectancy it would now
be somewhere around 80).
### Back when Otto von Bismarck was chancellor, the world was a different
one. Nowadays, at least 90% (ballpark figure, might be much higher) of
employed people *could* save enough on their own for retirement. As it is,
the state is taking away a huge chunk of their money, and returns a fraction
of what could be achieved with private investments. It's not a surprise -
the vast majority of tax money is squandered on defense, pork, subsidies,
you name it. Just keep Uncle Sam off my back, and I'll take care of myself,
like almost everybody would.
-------
> is a working justification for health and safety regulations in the
> workplace
>
> ### Again, why treat healthcare as a "common good", whatever it means?
It's something we all need.
More to the point, I view anyone who's dropped on the scrapheap of
society as a net loss *to me*. That person could be healthy and gainfully
employed and helping pay their insurance premiums or taxes or whatever
and contributing to the GDP.
### Ah, yes, this is a common attitude - the dregs of society should pull
their weight. No loitering. Basically, you claim a proprietary interest in
other members of the society (you can't have a "loss" if you don't own,
can't you?), and this means you will soon make demands of them. In all
socialist systems you are owned by others, they ensnare you by the "free"
goodies, and all the duties you owe for them. Well, this is just an aside.
------
> The
> only reason for intervention is if there are non-free-market conditions
> related to the employment contracts.
Er, in the world I live in there is not -- and never has been -- any such
thing as a free market. They tend to slide into disequilibrium very
rapidly,
and local circumstances prevent people from moving where the work is as
easily as theory would dictate that they should.
### Yes, you are absolutely right. Functions 1, and 2 serve mainly to
protect the free market, by preserving a large number of players
(elimination of ELEMENTS), and preventing distortions of information flows.
Protect the free market, and almost everything will be fine.
-------
Doesn't work that way. I can't, for example, afford to move to London. If
I decided to do so, I could sell my apartment -- but I'd end up having to
try to cram myself and my partner into a much smaller one, pay about three
times as much for it, and face relocation costs equal to a good chunk of a
year's salary.
### Yes, you do have a choice. Everybody who is not in prison has it, too.
-------
Now, I'm going to contradict myself by saying that right
now, if I wanted to do this I could -- but someone who is in financial
hardship because of (say) a local monopoly, can't, precisely because of
their hardship. The idea of labour mobility in a free market is a delusion
born of wishful thinking; in reality, the most mobile workers are the
highest- paid and richest, not the people at the bottom of the heap
who _need_ to move in order to find work. And that's just for starters.
Economics takes no notice of little things like where your family and
friends live -- items that real people put a non-zero value on, but which
show up in no financial calculations.
### Do you have data to support your claims? If you look at agricultural
workers, they are very mobile, and poor. If you want work, you *will* move
to get it. I did. If you stay and whine about unemployment, means you are
plainly lazy.
--------
Someone who's unemployed is costing the community money in two ways --
firstly, any assistance they're receiving, but more importantly, by
not contributing their labour effectively. Moreover, the double-whammy
is amplified in times of hardship. (I fear the USA is about to re-learn
the lessons of the great depression over the next few years ...)
### What assistance?? A poorhouse would cost next to nothing, and the
inmates would be put to work, according to their abilities. Much cheaper
than providing a freebie insurance which would mainly discourage people from
looking hard for a job (why break my back if I get paid 75% of my salary for
nothing, right?). And again, the demand that others have to "contribute". I
lived under this busybody system for years and it really cured me of
socialism.
------
> It's better to have zoning guidelines,
> public policy on the appearance of buildings,
>
> ### Definitely not. All you need is to define property rights and their
> limitations appropriately, and everything sorts itself out without
> bureaucrats. Covenants and landlord's associations are all you need.
Ah. Pay lawyers $500 per hour instead of clerks $10 an hour to sort it all
out.
### Only in a state-operated court. Arbitration is much cheaper, and much
better than a $10 an hour clerk who you can't even fire.
--------
Latest figures show a *decline* in the number of teenagers from lower-class
or poor backgrounds going into higher education -- precisely because the
mountain of debt they rack up exceeds any expectation of being able to
repay it. I disagree.
### If after school you can't get a job sufficient to pay for the school,
the school is a waste of time and money! How can you demand that the
taxpayer defray the cost of an education which doesn't provide any
financially measurable benefits?
-------
> ### What are your first principles? I thought I didn't see an explicit
> reference to them in your post.
To start with, and in order: freedom of association and speech, equal
treatment in law, protection of basic human rights, ownership of
property, freedom of personal development where it doesn't infringe
upon someone else's freedom. (With me so far?)
### These look like derivatives of my basics and some heuristics. What are
"basic human rights"? Yes, I am with you here but I derive the rules you
mention from more basic considerations. E.g. freedom of speech derives from
inviolability of the innocent person's body (the wish to survive may not be
opposed) - you may not threaten him with violence to make him stop talking
(to put it in a somewhat simplified manner).
-------
To follow with: no human being is an island, and we live in social groups
such that other peoples' actions affect us. We therefore need at least a
mimimal set of rules to mediate such interactions. The market is NOT the
only place we interact, but it's an important one. Some items cannot have
financial values attached because they're subjectively valued, and in many
cases they mean far more to people than money -- in extreme cases, even
survival. (My pet cats' life is worth FAR more to me than it is to you,
for example. The validity of Christian doctrine is worth zip to me --
I'm an atheist -- but a Bishop's entire personality may be dependent on
his assessment of its worth. The September 11th hijackers had shared values
they were willing to die for that we hold to be repugnant. And so on.)
### Good. But what does it have to do with the state (aside from the state
frequently interfering with those subjective values you mention.
------
I'm with you so far; there's nothing objectionable in the above, except that
I'd replace "innocent humans" with "sapients" (innocence is impossible to
evaluate in this context, and "humans" might rule out uploads according to
some people :)
### Yes, you are right. "Innocence" is a messy conglomerate of ideas, the
carpet under which I sweep the problems with my ideology - I did describe it
here on the list about 6 months ago. Can't find the reference now.
-----
I look around and what I see is a bunch of entities that provide a
consistent, geographically bounded legal framework -- backed up, where
necessary, by the threat of force -- and a mechanism for extending that
legal framework (which we call government). Violence isn't inevitable
in the system.
### The legal framework is not worth the paper it's written on without a
gunman, somewhere in the background. The fuzzy and benign aspects of the
state are also dependent on force, always. And I arrived at this conclusion
long before I ever heard the word "libertarian".
------
> The above have in common an impact on survival of innocents,
You haven't explained what "innocent" means, within your world-view.
### I'll try -later. I have a long drive home, because I moved to get a job
:-). It does look like our basics are pretty close, but their specific
applications are in some parts amazingly far apart.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:59 MST