From: Brian Phillips (deepbluehalo@earthlink.net)
Date: Sat Aug 10 2002 - 16:03:55 MDT
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 13:25:10 +0100
From: Charlie Stross <charlie@antipope.org>
Subject: Re: Demarchy's promise
<<Ah, I note your reservations at the end with interest. I would be inclined
to agree -- if I was convinced that charitable donations were a suitable
basis for anything. I'm not. In the world I live in, people are selfish;
charitable donations are a tiny part of the economy, well under 1% of
GDP, and certainly not capable of substituting for real cover. 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?>>
Why are charitable donations such a tiny piece of expenditures?
Could it be because the working and the working wealthy are
annoyed by the "forced donation" rules of statists?
<<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?>>
Incorrect. You ARE talking as if you are a statist. A statist=liberal. There
is no difference, only the speed of approach towards total implimentation
of the ideological platform. Pollution can be handled by the market.
I have property, you damage my property through your negligence.. we
have arbitration, possibly a lawsuit.
<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.>
Salesman work on commission as do personal injury attourneys.
Read up on ambulance chasers.
<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.>
Thing is you won't get clean lungs. All you will get is the assurance that
the emphysema you are NOT getting compensated for is caused by
the state (the Fed is a HUGE polluter) or pseudo-private entities
who have bought or bribed themselves into official compliance with
the law.
<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.>
I suppose you never had a grandmother with a propane tank out behind the
house
that got filled 2-3 times per year by the local gas company?
<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. >
Epidemiology doesn't respect your statist bias. It's free access to other
peoples property that allow disease vectors to exist. Local private
inititatives are plenty sufficent. A free-polity can choose to control
the vector persons or control the vectors IN the persons, so as to
bring customers and patrons to their enterprise's geographic area.
<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. >
Actually if the roads were private no road-owner would let a person
without
insurance drive on his road (he would get sued by the injured party).
Funny how the problems you keep mentioning are CAUSED by the state,
yet you wish to CURE them via the state as well. The state causes the
free-rider problem, it is a great parasite which encourages other
smaller leeches.
<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.>
Property access rights. Enough said.
<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).>
Britain? If so you need to read up on your physican's satisfaction issues.
I wouldn't be a physician in Britain, doesn't pay.
<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.>
Hmm they must have tariffs or .no I know... it's statist pollution laws
making gas and autos cost so much. do ya think? Bullies called
armies confiscating anything they make and save in the worst cases?
<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?>
If they wish to me to spend my time and money treating them they damn
well better. TANSTAAFL!
<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 ...)>>
You're right about the relearning. Maybe we will get hard currency and
less regulation out of it.. but I doubt it. Nanny-state memes are too
attractive to the mob.
>> Since any
>> state-imposed rule involves the threat of death (by the definition of the
> >state as the monopoly user of violence in an area), imposition of rules
by
> >the state is allowable only as long as both rules 1 and 2 are not
violated.
We have different definitions of the state. (Game over.)
States often assert a monopoly power of violence, but in reality
their monopoly is frequently brought into question. (Just ask the
IRA.) Moreover, it doesn't define the full range of state activities
effectively. The definition of a state as a local monopoly of violence
is one I see coming from libertarians -- where did it originate? (Hayek?)>
And watch the monopoly respond to the possibility of a competitor.
SAS anyone anyone? Just how did those kindly British government types
respond to the IRA's attempt to introduce "competition" into the "legal
framework"?
(not that I like the IRA, the only good thing about them is that they
ARE Irish :)
<<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.>>
Tell that to the fellow wearing the gun and the nightstick.
And the kevlar. And the radio to call in the rest of his heavily
armed posse. And the gaols they enforce. And all the people
I dislike culturally but still don't deserve to be caged rape victims.
The state sucks. Game over.
<Well, yes. It's just that we have very different fundamental definitions of
what a state is. Yours seems to be some kind of sinister
violence-monopolist,
while mine is a legal system.
- -- Charlie>
A State is a legal system backed up by violence. Otherwise it would be
an combination arbitration board/ security agency/ chamber of commerce.
Brian
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:59 MST