Re: Immortality and Resources

J. de Lyser (
Sat, 08 Feb 1997 00:23:14 +0100

At 12:52 6-02-97 -0800, Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:

>redressing such microscopic grievances costs more than tolerating them.


>When the redress of grievances is placed in the free market, solutions
>will be arrived at that are the most efficient for the circumstances
>without the nedd for external control. Each protection agency (assuming
>for the moment a Friedman-like system) will set its own "deductables"
>of harm, and they will tend to settle into those values that cause it
>to attract enough business without costing too much in effort. It is
>likely that the agencies will all find similar levels that best suit
>human nature and the technology of the day.

hmmm, could this imply: "no money - no justice" ? People are very likely to
start taking justice in their own hands in such a system...
Which may put us right back into situations we have just overcome.

Also, you're still stuck with a powerstructure in the form of a 'protection
agency' who could very well start abusing their power, and start filling
up the powervacuum, causing a city or state to call upon another protection
agency for protection from the first ? what will their price be,
consessions limiting the cities freedom maybe ?

Problem is that i can't see where this solution is likely to maintain the
powervacuum, or create a system where that power is distributed widely.

>I personally believe that scarcity is a fundamental irreducible attribute
>of property, and therefore things like contractual privileges and names
>(i.e., trademarks) are property, but pure copyrights and patents are not.

i agree.

>Nor do I accept the popular justification that they are necessary to
>encourage creation and invention--they do no such thing, they just
>manipulate the market into preferring forms of invention that we >have
become accustomed to.

This is what i tried to make clear to Eric in a posting a long time ago, i
guess i couldn't find the right words, and i must have been misunderstood,
which is why i reacted reserved this time. I said then the companies were
behind it, whereas i now see where Eric would have placed responsability
for the system on the state. I don't think either of them are willing to
give patents up. (that is the state and companies, not Eric ! :-) )

> politics is the normative philosophy of human interaction.

Sure, i just have more than ONE political goal, and am open to cooperation
with people who might disagree with one of the others.

J. de Lyser