Webb_S [Webb_S@bls.gov] wrote:
>My previous "hippie" example relates to the acquisitor issue. I don't hear
>much discussion about how the sick, disabled, or infirm  will fare under
>A-C. Another participant in
>this forum went so far as to say "fuck em".
Depends on what the definition of "em" is, to paraphrase your Glorious Leader. If you read what I wrote, you'll find that, actually, in reality, I said nothing about the sick, disabled or infirm, I was talking about the "give me convenience or give me death" crowd who make up a large fraction of modern society; you included.
As for the sick, disabled, or infirm, they're likely to do better in an A-C society than they do today; one thing government has been very good at is creating medical monopolies and pushing up the price of medical care. Without them our medical bills would be much, much lower. Not to mention that the best way to care for sick, disabled and infirm people is to advance medical technology to the point where we can cure them cheaply; government, with its restrictions on medical research and the backing of the monopoly medical lobby, again ensures that the sick have to keep paying out for temporary treatment.
And without punitive taxes forcing just about everyone to go out and work full-time, we'd have more free time to devote to looking after sick friends and relatives. Finally, if anyone wants to set up a voluntary socialist/communist community to take care of the sick, disabled and infirm, they will be free to do so. The problem is that most of the "caring" lefties only care for these people in the abstract, and when it comes down to actually really, physically doing something about their "caring" they can't be bothered. Too inconvenient.
I have a great deal of respect for those who live by their convictions, particularly those who give up the dubious benefits of modern commercial life to look after those who need help, and I do what I can to help those I know. I despise those whose idea of "caring" is to force the rest of us to pay for their socialist wet dreams. Fuck 'em.
>The A-C "model" is based on assumptions about the sorts of
>economic/organizational entities that will arise in the absence of
No... I don't think many people are saying that that is how anarcho capitalism *would* work, just pointing out ways that it *could* work. Jesus, you people complain when we don't have a ready-made list of solutions to every social problem, and then complain again when we provide some.
>Maybe a group of extropians could purchase
>an island in the pacific and set something up. It won't be easily, but if
>A-C theory is sound it should be very profitable.
Oh come on... how long would it last before Bill Clinton used it as a convenient target to get out of impeachment proceedings? The only way it could work would be to threaten to instantly nuke any country who took action against it... and defence against hundreds of scared competing nation-states would seriously cut into profits. It will happen sooner or later, but the first libertarian state is going to have to fight like hell to survive, unless Y2K takes the Feds down.
>I think what
Why is that "a proper function of a minimalist government"? Surely
businesses can set up their own information clearinghouses? I certainly
don't see "serving as an information clearinghouse" mentioned anywhere in
my copy of the Constitution; do they give you a different version when you
join the Feds?
>I'm doing is a proper function of a minimalist government, i.e., serving as
>an information clearinghouse and helping to keep the economic wheels of the
Why is that "a proper function of a minimalist government"? Surely businesses can set up their own information clearinghouses? I certainly don't see "serving as an information clearinghouse" mentioned anywhere in my copy of the Constitution; do they give you a different version when you join the Feds?