From: speednut@werple.apana.org.au (Mark Jose)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: The Lam philosophy (was Re: JJJ...)
Date: 20 Dec 1992 14:25:51 +1100
Organization: werple public-access unix, Melbourne
NNTP-Posting-Host: werple.apana.org.au

Original Message From: dyfl@kbs.citri.edu.au (Daniel Lam)
 
>It is well known that productivity of slave labour is inferior to
>that of free labour.  No selfish capitalist would want to keep
>slaves.
 
I suppose it depends on how well you beat the slaves. They might not
be as productive as paid workers but the BIG difference is you don't
pay slaves!
 
>Somehow I don't think such a road company would attract as many
>customers' dollars as one that didn't piss people off so much.
 
So if the company who owned the road did not want police on their
roads then they would have lots of speeders zooming through and
consequently the number of accidents will rise. Either way you
loose. Policing by numbers is no policing at all, in my books.
 
Indeed I cannot see how a police or army could be maintained
under such a system, as this is a distortion of the true
"market forces" concept. Instead I would think a police force
is irrelevant in an anarchy., just like Somalia.
 
Hey, you off to Somalia to see how market forces work? :-)
 
>What makes you think governments are more compassionate than ordinary
>mortals?
 
They aren't but they receive money to look after these people.
You cannot deny that things like abuse and murder will occur if
retarded and other "burdensome" people were forced to be cared
for by people with either no training or no will.
 
>Oh, come on.  Anyone without a tertiary education is a slave?  You
>have a much too high opinion of our universities.  The provision of
 
Nonsense, merely pointing out that "such things as a tertiary
education" (not exclusively, mind you) being unavailable to the
lower-class who cannot afford that education would lead to a
distortion in the society. Surely you can see this. There will
be those who can read, write and articulate and those that could
not afford such things. Over the generations, non-education will
become the norm - why be educated when you can get a job as a
cheap labourer - after all there would be no unions in such a
society to dictate what is good or bad.
 
 
>educational services absorbs resources.  What should consumers not be
>allowed to express their preferences for education and other goods
>and services on the market and direct production accordingly?  If you
>believe in a "natural right" to an education, I cannot argue with
>you, other than say it doesn't exist.
 
There is no such thing as a "natural right". All rights are
earned. Under your system there would be no rights, full stop. If
I want an education and cannot afford it, then I am immediately
disadvantaged which means that my freedom of choice
(anarchist notion?) is limited.
 
>>Supposing the health system was based on this premise, how do you
>>propose those people that unexpectedly take ill get treatment. If they
>>have chosen (through economic means perhaps) not to participate in
>>some insurance scheme then should they die for this wrong decision.
>>Economics-wise yes, socially no.
>
>So you choose for them instead?
 
Good come-back. I don't choose for them, I merely participate in
a system that allows people to make judgements not based solely
on economic values and to in some way allow people to be covered
for the everyday problem that occurs, such as a heart-attack.
 
Let me see you decline service in a public hospital when you are
shipped to their emergency ward. Would your system insist on
payment up front before servicing you???
 
>Oh, I'm starting to get worried.  What about if an asteroid hits the
>earth tomorrow?  There's no such thing as absolute security in the
>world.  Security, too, has its costs.  Again, it's a question of
>whether the consumers decide what to spend their money on or the
>state tells them to do it.
 
But do you agree with the proposition that someone should
bankrupt themselves in order to pay for a medical bill they
inadvertently got because they made the decision to not
participate in a commercial insurance scheme. All I am trying to
do is make you aware that your cut-and-dried arguments for
anarchy sound great on paper but are YOU willing to live with
all your decisions or indeed die by them.
 
What of present government functions such as business advisory
services and the like. Who would run these non-profit
organisations?