From: Michael Lorrey (retroman@together.net)
Date: Thu Dec 10 1998 - 08:33:57 MST
Samael wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Lorrey <retroman@together.net>
> To: extropians@extropy.com <extropians@extropy.com>
> Date: 09 December 1998 18:12
> Subject: Re: The Education Function
>
> >Samael wrote:
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Michael Lorrey <retroman@together.net>
> >> To: extropians@extropy.com <extropians@extropy.com>
> >> Date: 08 December 1998 19:39
> >> Subject: Re: The Education Function
> >>
> >> >If a society cannot trust the individual, how can it trust a group of
> >> >individuals? I can always trust myself to look out for me, and you can
> >> trust
> >> >yourself to look out for you. I cannot always trust you to look out for
> me,
> >> >especially when our interests are in conflict. Applying this principle
> to
> >> one
> >> >thing and not another is hypcritical. Applying it to technology, or to
> >> >social/cultural issues, but not to economic relationships reflects a
> lack
> >> of
> >> >integrity which I find disturbing, and untrustworthy.
> >>
> >> Because, like most ideals, the system breaks down under certain
> >> circumstances.
> >>
> >> Take, as an example, garbage collection. Everyone has garbage. None of
> us
> >> want it cluttering up our kitchens. We coul set things up so that each
> of
> >> us pays a small fee to have out rubbish picked up. but some people will
> >> decline to pay. Now their rubbish is affecting me. Should I pay for
> their
> >> rubbish to be removed? Or should we force them to pay gfor their rubbish
> to
> >> be removed? Or just have their steaming piles of decomposing filth
> collect
> >> in the middle of the street?
> >
> >Well, in an anarchical situation, they have the choice of getting their
> trash
> >taken away or having me bazooka their front yard. In a libertarian
> situation,
> >they have the choice of taking it away or paying the impact their
> slovenliness
> >has on my property value, as well as my increased costs for vermin control
> and
> >possible health impacts once I've complained to my PPA, which contacts
> their
> >PPA, which imposes a higher premium on them for the increased risk they are
> >assuming, which would likely equal or exceed the weekly fee for trash
> >removal.... funny how that can work out.
>
> PPA? And in one of these cases you yourself are coercing them. In another
> case you have a system of government (I assume that's what the PPA is). How
> is either of these an improvement?
Use of force in self defense is not coersion. Since they commited the agressive
act, then my actions are merely in self defense, to regain the state of my
property prior to its victimization. Whether I act alone, as a vigilantist, or
through my PPA is irrelevant, except in respect to the fact that it could be far
less violent if done as a mere matter of insurance coverage. If you don't know
what a PPA is then you don't know anything about libertarianism.
> >> Another example: Neonatology - medicine as applied to babies.
> >> A baby is born with a defect. the baby is a person. It has no income
> and
> >> no resources. Should it's parents be forced to pay for it, even if they
> >> can't, even if they don't want to? Should it be asked for a credit card
> >> number when it's born?
> >
> >The parents would of course have coverage under their private health
> insurance.
> >Parents who cannot afford to bear or keep a child should not keep the
> child. A
> >poor person's PPA could easily set a high premium for the person if they
> are
> >fertile, and low if they agree to a contraceptive implant for a long term.
> Its
> >all about making people take responsibility for their actions, and paying
> for
> >them. If they cannot afford them then they learn quickly enough about
> personal
> >responsibility.
>
> So you're still forcing them to pay a tax. Just to either a PPA or health
> insurance. And then you're telling them whether tey're 'allowed' to have a
> child. Still sounds like government.
No a government is a monopoly, giving its citizens no choice, one size fits all.
In a libertarian society, the consumer has a choice of insurers, and even a
choice of insurance policies from each insurer. This is bringing the market
forces to bear upon needs that are now met by government.
> >
> >> Just two problems that pure libertarian capitalism has problems with.
> >
> >Hardly, since pure libertarian capitalism has not and does not exist to
> date,
> >you don't know do you?
>
> Both situations were obviously theoretical, as libertarian capitalism is
> theoretical. I do know this. I have studied some history (and politics and
> socioloigy and business and philosophy and physics and the occasional other
> thing here and there).
So have I. I could say I actually learned something from what I studied, but I
don't want to get really rude.
> >> I agree that Libertarian Capitalism works in 90% of all cases and that it
> >> should eb left to do so as much as is physically possible. But no system
> >> works 100% of the time.
> >>
> >
> >Sure it can. The solar system has been working fine for billions of years.
> The
> >fun thing about libertarianism is that it allows the market to create
> solutions
> >for ANY problem. It prices those solutions at their TRUE value, so nobody
> has to
> >pay for something they don't want to, and well meaning busy bodies cant ram
> >anything down anybody's throat.
>
> The solar system doesn't 'work'. It just happens.
Exactly. Libertarians Capitalism just happens too.
> Value is entirely
> dependent on viewpoint and tends to come out at the average of what people
> are willing to pay - which tends to leave out those people who fall far
> enough below the average income.
And only in a socialist state will they have little chance to change that
situation. The key rule to libertarian society is: If you want it, earn it. A
perfect spontaneously organized meritocracy.
Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:56 MST