Re: Evolution in action (was: Re Kidney-nappers)
Wed, 10 Sep 1997 23:03:50 +0200

At 11:18 10-09-97 -0700, you wrote:
>Anders Sandberg writes:
> > True. This is the major reason I don't think market solutions
> > always produce the best results as perceived by human individuals;
> > markets can organise to produce good results for other entities
> > than humans, such as corporations.

Eric Watt Forste:
>Yes, this is true, but the only alternative usually presented
>to market solutions is political solutions, which have the
>exact same failings: political systems can organise to produce
>good results for other entities than humans, such as
>In my opinion, these two points cancel each other, and it is other
>points that make me prefer market-mediated processes to politically
>mediated processes.

Like maybe the fact that choosing to live under another state, seriously
alters your life, whereas choosing to use other companies
products/services, doesn't.

I can't say i'm happy knowing that large amounts of resources are owned by
entities, that do not have the interest of humans as their priority.
(companies maybe even less than states), but i can live with the fact that
people at least have a weapon to influence companies (=boycot). Whereas
states just lock you up if you refuse to pay for their services, and in
return you get to vote on who decides how much more of your money they're
going to take away this 4 year period, and how many more of those services
they're going to scrap with that extra money.

I see a dark future where everything you buy is either damaging to your
health or to the environment, and has a special tax on it. Not according to
how damaging it is, but to price/consumer curves of how much they can add
to the product, to recieve their maximum income from it.

('what ?, tax on fuel has gone down ? has it overnight become slightly less
dangerous to the environment ? or was it damaging the tax income received
from our national transport industry ?, damn...')

Joost de Lyser