Re: BASICS: Anarcho-capitalism
Fri, 11 Dec 1998 09:28:32 -0800 (PST)

Samael [] wrote:
>Not entirely full. There appear to be a few non-anarchists about the place.

I realise you use a different version of the English language to the rest of us, but where I come from "full of" means "there are plenty of", not that the entire list is anarchists.

>ie - if you want to pay for defence against enemy bombers, but your
>neighbour doesn't, how do we defend one of you and not the otehr - and if
> we
>can't, do we just let your neighbour get away with something for nothing.

  1. Why would anyone want to bomb me if I haven't done anything to them?
  2. I don't care about defence against enemy bombers, I care about defence against enemy bombs. As long as I can destroy or evade any bombs that might have hit near enough to cause damage to me, then that's all that matters. If they land on my neighbour, tough luck. If they would have landed on my neighbour if I hadn't destroyed them, well, that's good luck for him or her; it's irrelevant to me.
  3. Anyone who tries to bomb Transhuman Mark will be hit with massive retaliation. Anyone who looks like they're going to bomb me will be pre-emptively nuked. Defence is easy in an era of cheap mass-destruction weapons.

Similarly for your fire example; I don't care whether my neighbour's house burns down as long as mine doesn't. If fire from his house is threatening mine, I'll do something about it; if that helps him, I don't care.

You're trying to discuss a future transhuman society as though it's just a modern socialist state with a few more bells and whistles; it will be nothing of the kind.