Date sent: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 05:57:40 -0800 (PST) From: firstname.lastname@example.org To: email@example.com Subject: RE: FW: Property [was Re: The Education Function] Send reply to: firstname.lastname@example.org
> 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".
The government was prepared to address just this issue, but private enterprise, in particular physicians, drug manufacturers, insurance companies and lawyers, detecting a threat to their exorbitant profits, financed the "Harry and Louise" ads and, with the help of HUGE campaign contributions (and the threat of same to the campaign opponents of any adversaries) were able to defeat it. Joe
> 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
> >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?