From: J. de Lyser (gd33463@glo.be)
Date: Fri Feb 07 1997 - 16:23:14 MST
At 12:52 6-02-97 -0800, Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
>redressing such microscopic grievances costs more than tolerating them.
<snip>
>When the redress of grievances is placed in the free market, solutions
>will be arrived at that are the most efficient for the circumstances
>without the nedd for external control. Each protection agency (assuming
>for the moment a Friedman-like system) will set its own "deductables"
>of harm, and they will tend to settle into those values that cause it
>to attract enough business without costing too much in effort. It is
>likely that the agencies will all find similar levels that best suit
>human nature and the technology of the day.
hmmm, could this imply: "no money - no justice" ? People are very likely to
start taking justice in their own hands in such a system...
Which may put us right back into situations we have just overcome.
Also, you're still stuck with a powerstructure in the form of a 'protection
agency' who could very well start abusing their power, and start filling
up the powervacuum, causing a city or state to call upon another protection
agency for protection from the first ? what will their price be,
consessions limiting the cities freedom maybe ?
Problem is that i can't see where this solution is likely to maintain the
powervacuum, or create a system where that power is distributed widely.
>I personally believe that scarcity is a fundamental irreducible attribute
>of property, and therefore things like contractual privileges and names
>(i.e., trademarks) are property, but pure copyrights and patents are not.
i agree.
>Nor do I accept the popular justification that they are necessary to
>encourage creation and invention--they do no such thing, they just
>manipulate the market into preferring forms of invention that we >have
become accustomed to.
This is what i tried to make clear to Eric in a posting a long time ago, i
guess i couldn't find the right words, and i must have been misunderstood,
which is why i reacted reserved this time. I said then the companies were
behind it, whereas i now see where Eric would have placed responsability
for the system on the state. I don't think either of them are willing to
give patents up. (that is the state and companies, not Eric ! :-) )
> politics is the normative philosophy of human interaction.
Sure, i just have more than ONE political goal, and am open to cooperation
with people who might disagree with one of the others.
J. de Lyser
Brussels
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:09 MST