From: Samael (Samael@dial.pipex.com)
Date: Thu Dec 10 1998 - 02:09:10 MST
-----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?
>> 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.
>
>>
>>
>> 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).
>
>> 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. 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.
Samael
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:56 MST