From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rms2g@virginia.edu)
Date: Wed Aug 14 2002 - 16:14:18 MDT
Good points here. I have the impression our views about the market might be
quite similar - are you also a soft-core libertarian like me?
Rafal Smigrodzki
rms2g@virginia.edu
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-extropians@extropy.org
[mailto:owner-extropians@extropy.org]On Behalf Of Dan Fabulich
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 1:34 AM
To: extropians@extropy.org
Subject: Re: Pollution and Epidemiology (was: Demarchy's promise)
Technotranscendence wrote:
> On Sunday, August 11, 2002 1:10 AM Dan Fabulich dfabulich@warpmail.net
> wrote:
> >> Pollution can be handled by the market. I have property,
> >> you damage my property through your negligence.. we
> >> have arbitration, possibly a lawsuit.
> >
> > I believe you dodged this question. What should the
> > arbitrators find? Who should win this lawsuit? On what
> > basis should penalties/restitution be awarded?
>
> This is kind of like saying that if people have freedom of the press,
> what will they publish, don't you think?:)
Not really. Actually, I think the most *convincing* arguments to liberals
is to show how and why a minarchy/anarchocapitalist society would actually
have rules (if not laws) that they regard as fair. Simply implying that
it would, particularly without any thought or suggestion as to what fair
rules even *look* like is what leads even our open-minded opponents to
think of us as naive zealots.
> > Of course the market will handle the question. But, er,
> > that's us, or people we pay/hire. How should we
> > handle it?
>
> If it's private arbitration, then it will be up to what both sides can
> agree to and can be enforced. In most cases, I gather this will mean
> that the polluter will be fined or at least stopped. What the actual
> fine will be would depend on the situation -- things like the value of
> the property, the value of the damage, court costs, and the like.
No, no... You misunderstand. The *amount* of the fine isn't what was
asked. Who would win in the case in which Alice dumps a bad in Bob's area
before anyone realizes that it's a bad? Why would the market arrive at a
fair answer to that question, rather than simply awarding the suit to
Alice because Bob is practically destitute? And so on.
You can't just *say* that the market would do this right. It must be
shown.
> > "choose to control the vector persons"??? How is that a market
> > solution? That sounds more like initiation of force to me: you've
> > forced sick people to remain in their quarantined
> > house/ghetto/whatever.
> >
> > On what authority? You being in the majority?
> >
> > What'll you do if they leave? Shoot them?
>
> If all property is privately owned (whether by one person or a group of
> people) or unowned -- there will be no such thing as public property --
> then a vector person can be prevented from coming onto a particular
> property by the owner.
So what happens if a destitute group of people find themselves in
territory from which they cannot afford to escape? What if none of their
neighbors will give them a loan? It's not like they can go elsewhere to
ask someone else for a loan.
What if they have only one neighbor, who completely surrounds them? Does
it matter if the neighbor did that intentionally?
It seems to me that a group could be forced into slavery in such a
situation. "I'll bring you food from the outside if you'll follow my
every order. Plus I get to whip you."
This is actually a live political issue today. Gilmore is suing the
government on the grounds that the government is not permitted to restrict
his fundamental right to travel between the states, even if he refuses to
present a government issued ID card. The right to travel seems to be
fundamental to the right to associate freely with whomever you like, and
to make trades with them.
Surely the destitute group surrounded by one neighbor's property cannot be
thought to be free, even if the neighbor ignores the destitute group and
does not otherwise interfere with them in any way whatsoever...
Especially then, since there's a good chance they may starve. (Though I
suppose that, in some twisted definition of political freedom from
interference, they would starve Free.)
> This is no different, in many respects, than the government solution:
> not allowing disease v[e]ctors to immigrate or to move about.
Er. In some cases, vectors whom some people might discriminate against,
exile, or "confine to their homes" (read: imprison) maintain their right
to travel about the country.
I mean, really, on libertarian grounds, could you possibly argue that the
*diseased* have initiated force against you?
-Dan
-unless you love someone-
-nothing else makes any sense-
e.e. cummings
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:06 MST