From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rms2g@virginia.edu)
Date: Wed Aug 14 2002 - 15:47:18 MDT
I am sorry it took me so long to answer this post but the robots need to be
fed with clones and consumables. I notice that Daniel Ust offered a number
of answers with which I tend to agree despite not being a hard-core
libertarian. Let me just make a few remarks:
Charlie Stross quoted me:
> ### <snip>property rights of the poorest will be
> safe.
What "property rights"?
The majority of the world's population today live OUTSIDE the organized
and quantified system of property to which we assign rights. Consider
illiterate peasant farmers living on the land and scratching a
living. Their involvement in the formal economy may be zero, but they're
still eating even though they don't 'own' the land they work -- insofar
as they don't have pieces of paper to say they're entitled to it, or
receive any money for what they grow, or spend any money for the extras
they acquire.
### Hmm, you've set a trap and I fell in - the really poor have no property
(that's why they are so poor). Actually, this is so because the states where
they live are fully controlled by self-serving elites, the way all the
nations of the first world were controlled until sometimes quite recently.
This represents an illegitimate function of the state (serving the interests
of self-appointed elites), we both agree on it - but weren't we trying to
work out a list the *legitimate*, ethically sound functions of the state?
------
<snip about informal economy>
It's a big headache. And no, I'm not suggesting that living like peasants
is a good thing: quite the opposite. But reciting Austrian School economic
nostrums isn't going to deal with the basic problem that they're utterly
inappropriate to people who aren't in the economy in the first place.
### You are right, the Austrian School won't help, if the state of your
residence is a vicious nepotistic tyranny, the way things mostly are in
Africa. Please note that I am not advocating the ruthless neocolonialism
that sometimes characterizes the First World's attitude towards the truly
poor nations. And again, the connection of the above passage to the
legitimate functions of the state escaped me.
-------
[ the commons ]
<snip>
More sensibly, it depends on the circumstances. If you car is parked in your
own back yard, on private property that isn't open to the public, then of
course not; the trespasser who deliberately ignores fences or warning signs
has committed an active intrusion. At the opposite extreme, if your car is
parked haphazardly across a bike lane at the bottom of a hill and out of
view
due to a bend, despite warning signs that parking is forbidden, then you're
entirely responsible because *you* committed the intrusion.
In practice, most violations of the commons fall somewhere in-between these
extremes. I don't believe in one-size-fits-all ...
### You actually mentioned the main feature that guides rational law
decision making - the need for the offender to ignore currently *existing*
(as opposed to maybe-in-the-future) law, or violate current accepted
standards of diligence, to be culpable. By the logic you use, quite
correctly, you cannot hold the industrialist responsible for delayed
repercussions of actions that only post factum were found to be deleterious.
You don't make a point why the state is needed to specifically defend the
commons (of course, you need the general functions of the state, prevention
of ELEMENTS, and provision of information but they do not need to
specifically protect the commons)
-------
"Any profession is a conspiracy against the laity" -- George Bernard
Shaw. On the other hand, properly administered professional bodies police
the standards of their own membership. If they don't, you risk ending up
with a lawyer who is cheap but incapable of arguing their way out of a
cardboard box. So there are arguments in favor of professionalisation
of the practice of law, as well as against it. Life's generally like that,
and I tend to find ideology a poor fit for the real world.
### There is a difference between an open and voluntary certification
process based on merit, and the guild-like monopolies of lawyers and
physicians. There is no need for forbidding anybody to practice law, long as
the practitioner is forced to provide true and accurate information about
his abilities (e.g. scores on exams, or recent rate of success in surgery).
The client can decide if he wants a top-notch and expensive professional, or
a cheaper beginner. Again, no need for state regulation, except as related
to the forcible disclosure of information and prevention of fraud. Function
#2c.
-------
> > 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.
No.
If adults are not vaccinated against polio it is OUR problem. You really
need to read up on epidemiology.
### Why should I worry about polio? I was vaccinated, and according to
available data, the immunity is quite long-lasting. Why should I be worried
about unvaccinated adults?.
--------
I'll also add that, as
a matter of taste and personal opinion, I find the idea of _not_ providing
antibiotics to people in need who can benefit from them, as a matter of
course, revolting. To quote J. P. Morgan, "The first thing is character.
Before money or property or anything else. Money cannot buy it." Making
sure that avoidable deaths are avoided is, in my world, a matter of
character.
### You might recall that I stated in the clearest terms that I hold the
sentient will to live as the foundation of all ethical thought. There is no
need to reiterate that you too are outraged at the idea of not saving lives
of those who need to be saved. However, it would be equally immoral to force
those who don't care about their lives to conform to your standards of
proper care for their bodies. There are fellow humans, who, amazingly,
prefer to buy a motorcycle for recreational use rather than health
insurance. Forcing them to buy health insurance by taxation of wages, or
sales tax, is plainly immoral.
Let me use an analogy: We all know that there are alcohol users who neglect
to buy vitamins. This puts their lives at risk, just mention
Wernicke-Korsakoff - but does it really mean we are morally obliged to give
them a supply of free vitamins (and food, and shelter, and everything else
they need to survive)? Please note that the vitamins are just as
indispensable for survival as antibiotics, for the right population.
An alcoholic might try to play on your emotions, complain about how poor he
is, in the hope of tricking you into paying for his lunches. He knows he can
then spend the rest of his resources on his vice.
Now, you may indeed provide all of the above unconditionally, simply because
the alcoholics say they need it. This is equivalent to a subsidy for
drinking - an adult freed of the need to provide for his food will have more
to spend on alcohol. This is the starry-eyed charity approach, quite
uncommon. You may demand that they stop drinking and you help only if they
conform, or simply you force them to do what you want, "for their own good".
This is the socialist solution, "pull your weight", "contribute", "be an
upstanding citizen" are the catch-phrases. You may conclude that you don't
care and let them drop dead. This is the orthodox libertarian approach. Or,
you may use my idea - help must be given to all and only to those who truly
need help to survive (and are not merely trying to trick you into indirectly
subsidizing whatever else they want to have).
Do you want to give free antibiotics to the homeless but deny vitamins and
free lunches to alcoholics? The answer would help me gauge the degree of
consistency of your suggestions, and perhaps uncover some as yet unexplored
assumptions.
You mention above it is a matter of taste and personal opinion whether one
must save lives - but if there are some basic ideas shared between the
parties to a discussion, sometimes it is possible to derive mutually
acceptable policies in a more rigorous way. Since, as I believe, both of us
share the fundamental respect for the human wish to live (1st rule), as well
as liberty where it doesn't conflict with the 1st rule, we could expect to
be able to find a closer correspondence in our preferred social solutions. I
argue that the soft-core libertarian way is more compatible with our shared
basics. Furthermore, I think that our disagreements are due in large part to
social conditioning which tends to produce emotional reactions interfering
with the evaluation of certain ideas. I recall very well I considered the
idea of "free" healthcare to be an inalienable right in any civilized
society. Yet, a rational analysis, as well as practical experiences with a
variety of health systems, as physician, student and patient in three
countries, convinced me otherwise.
I do want to form a coherent set of ideas about the application of basic
morality (which we share, as I believe), and all participants in our thread
will benefit from this exercise in derivation of the specific from the
general. This reduces conflict and improves efficacy.
--------
> 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.
Does the word "rape" exist in your vocabulary?
### Yes, unusual circumstances can always modify and invalidate every
statement containing the words "always", "every", and "never" but they never
really change the statement's truth value.
------
> 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!
In that case, we have a fundamental disagreement over core human values.
(See
"character", above.) No further discussion seems possible.
### I refuse to believe that. Neither of us is a callous, egoistic monster.
Neither one of us is the perfectly altruistic saint. We share more than you
admit.
------
Disagree. In my world, the free market accounts for about 25% of the actual
survival-related activity of human beings, and it doesn't satisfy all the
requirements even of the minority that participates in it.
### I don't understand. Are you saying that 75% of food, housing and
life-saving services is provided by non-market mechanisms?
----------
I'm talking about, we *can't* assume a free market that is protected from
distorted information flows, or that even works all the time. In practice,
there will always be a need for oversight, and problems with regulators
taking envelopes full of used notes or post-resignation seats on the boards
of the regulatees -- regulatory capture is the big enemy of the real-world
market, and freeing the market from regulation is like burning down the
house in order to deal with the mice in the wainscoting.
### As I said, I am not a libertarian. Didn't I reiterate a few times that
the good state *is* needed to protect the free market, from itself, and from
the bad state? You might recall I do not recommend removal of oversight,
merely the reduction of direct brutal intervention, the kind that allows the
regulators to expect the stuffed envelopes.
----------
Rubbish. They've got an elderly and infirm mother with arthritis to
support, and three young children, and can't fit into a one-bedroom
apartment on the third floor of a tenement.
### Well, it's hard to accumulate three kids without wanting to (except in
some totally evil religious slavery communities out there in the murky
Middle Ages countries). While the children should never be made to pay for
the imprudence of their parents (see function #3), the parents themselves
should face the consequences of their choices, perhaps even having to live
in a poorhouse, and having the state garnish their wages to cover all the
expenses. Yes, this is a function for the state that I fully agree with.
---------
If they stay with their
local community they can maybe scratch some vegetables, do a few favors
for cousin Al who will provide some sacks of potatoes in return, and so
on. If they move to the big smoke, they lose the support network. *THAT*
is how an informal economy works -- and while you can't cost it, because
it's never quantified in financial terms (being based on barter, favours,
and kinship relations) it has a non-zero value to the members.
### Ah, well, we all have to make our choices. I lost the thread here, is it
something about the state being obliged to help such people using the money
taken from me (kicking and screaming, I might add), or something?
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:06 MST