From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Sun Aug 11 2002 - 09:30:15 MDT
On Friday, August 09, 2002 8:25 AM Charlie Stross charlie@antipope.org
wrote:
> 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.
I don't want to reignite the guns debate here, but if cheap handguns
weren't outlawed AND gun control laws were removed, the poor could
defend themselves. Heck, even in the 1960s, the Black Panthers patroled
Black urban neighborhoods to reduce the level of police brutality. Mind
you, the Panthers weren't overflowing with money.
This brings up another point, people do tend to form associations for
mutual benefit. In many a Third World country, e.g., poor farmers pool
their money together to buy farm equipment. They also pool together to
bring in the crops. The same thing could be -- and probably has
been - -applied to security.
Also, security is not as labor intensive as one might think. For
instance, locks, alarms, cameras, fences, and the like are what's
traditionally known as capital. There's no reason to suspect that by
having a free market in security, it would become more capital-intensive
over time. (It would also drive down costs and stimulate new methods of
supplying security.)
Cheers!
Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:00 MST