From: firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com> Date: 11 December 1998 20:56
Subject: Re: BASICS: Anarcho-capitalism
>Samael [Samael@dial.pipex.com] wrote:
>>Not entirely full. There appear to be a few non-anarchists about the
>I realise you use a different version of the English language to the rest
>of us, but where I come from "full of" means "there are plenty of", not
>that the entire list is anarchists.
>>ie - if you want to pay for defence against enemy bombers, but your
>>neighbour doesn't, how do we defend one of you and not the otehr - and if
>>can't, do we just let your neighbour get away with something for nothing.
>1. Why would anyone want to bomb me if I haven't done anything to them?
They want your country?
>2. I don't care about defence against enemy bombers, I care about defence
> against enemy bombs. As long as I can destroy or evade any bombs that
> might have hit near enough to cause damage to me, then that's all
> that matters. If they land on my neighbour, tough luck. If they would
> have landed on my neighbour if I hadn't destroyed them, well, that's
> good luck for him or her; it's irrelevant to me.
Great. Have you seen the results fo the dresden Firbombs? The city was
bombs nowadays tend to take out large areas. You can't dodge them, you can't duck, and unless you have your own personal shelter (of a damned high quality), yoiu're probably better off investing in anti-aircraft gear and your own fighter planes than anything else. And those are _way_ too expensive for individuals to buy.
>3. Anyone who tries to bomb Transhuman Mark will be hit with massive
> retaliation. Anyone who looks like they're going to bomb me will be
> pre-emptively nuked. Defence is easy in an era of cheap mass-destruction
If you look like the sort of person who might pre-emptively nuke people,
don't you think that everyone else might pre-emptively nuke you, for
And are we going to move to the 'Every man for himself' idealogy only after you become transhuman?
>Similarly for your fire example; I don't care whether my neighbour's house
>burns down as long as mine doesn't. If fire from his house is threatening
>mine, I'll do something about it; if that helps him, I don't care.
Most fires threaten whole blocks. And will probably want to use a fire brigade to control the fire, as inividual's have neither the training nor the equipment to protect their own homes.
>You're trying to discuss a future transhuman society as though it's just
>a modern socialist state with a few more bells and whistles; it will be
>nothing of the kind.
Sorry, I thought you wanted to be a libertarian now.
In a transhuman world we will all be able to look after ourselves, so I'll be quite happy to be a libertarian. It's today I'm worried about.