From: Billy Brown (bbrown@conemsco.com)
Date: Fri Dec 11 1998 - 10:06:17 MST
Samael:
<snip>
> In a pure capiutalist society she would have starved to death by now.
<snip>
I think this illustrates a common cause of misunderstandings in this kind of
debate. In a 17th, or 18th, or even 19th century capitalist state she would
have starved to death, because society was so poor that charitable
institutions (funded through voluntary donations) did not have the
reasources to provide the needy with even the most basic assistance. But
the wealth of a society increases with advances in technology.
In a 20th century capitalist state the class of truly poor people (as
opposed to the "I'm poor because I can't afford a 20" TV" types) is much
smaller, and the class of people who donate to private charities is much
larger. Consequently, private charity would be sufficient to ensure that no
one starves on the streets. Of course, that still doesn't cover medical
care, education, or other basic expenses.
In the 21st century the wealth of society as a whole will rapidly grow to
the point where private charities can provide all of these basic services to
those who have no money. By the time we have even moderately advanced
nanotech, providing a 20th century standard of living to those who can't
support themselves will be a trivial expense. At this point the main
rational for a welfare state will completely cease to exist.
Billy Brown
bbrown@conemsco.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:57 MST