mark@unicorn.com wrote:
>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.
Your assumption about my outlook is completely unfounded. Besides, the modern economy is founded on increasing consumer convenience. Doesn't seem like convenience is a bad thing at all.
>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.
I think that some have convinced themselves that they *do* know how A-C would work. I'm not asking for more theory, I'm asking to see the theory put to the test. Since the solutions provided by A-C should by definition be beyond our capability to plan in advance, sitting around and talking about what might happen when we smash the state doesn't help convince me. And I'm not yet willing to bet the farm without some experimental support for the theory.
>>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.
You've got to start somewhere. If you think converting the continental U.S. to A-C would be easier then go that route. I think you're asking for unnecessary headaches by not test-running A-C on a smaller scale, however.
>>I think what
>>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
>>country turning.
>
>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?
The status quo can be justified with respect to Constitutional mandates, but that's really beside the point.
There are certain useful economic metrics that cannot be produced unless companies are willing to release sensitive and confidential data about their operations. To date, said companies have apparently not felt comfortable releasing this data to anyone short of the government for fear that it might be used against them. They are however heavily reliant upon this data. There *may* be an A-C way to get around this, but it seems to me that (a) a central repository of business indicators is extremely valuable, and (b) a centralized information clearinghouse is an effective means for producing them.
Steven