From: dyfl@kbs.citri.edu.au (Daniel Lam)
Subject: Re: The Lam philosophy (was Re: JJJ...)
Organization: Collaborative Information Technology Research Institute
Date: 21 Dec 92 01:36:52 GMT

speednut@werple.apana.org.au (Mark Jose) writes:
>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.

Somehow I don't think a company with a reputation for running deadly
roads would do very well either.  I would expect any smart road
company to be enforcing sensible regulations to protect its customers
without pissing them off completely.  The nature of these regulations
(such as what the speed limit should be) would depend on what the
customers want.

>Hey, you off to Somalia to see how market forces work? :-)

I don't see much market forces in Somalia.

>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.

So government guarantees more training and more will?

>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.

This is rubbish.  Education is a valuable resource.  Do you really
think people will not demand education just because government
doesn't fund it out of tax-payers' money?  And do you think all those
greedy entrepreneurs will not provide the education when there's a
profit to be made out of it?

>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.

Absolute freedom of choice is an impossible notion.  Resources are
finite and scarcity is the rule.  What rights there will be will
depend on what rights people decide to respect and are able to
enforce.  But no amount of rights can conjure wealth out of nothing.
How much education there will be will depend on how much education we
can afford.  I do challenge the idea that there will be large numbers
of people unable to afford education in a free market.  There will
probably be schools of differnet degrees of luxury, just as there are
houses and cars of different degrees of luxury.  But where there is a
demand for education, it will be provided.

>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.

Of course.  The market is perfectly capable of allowing that choice.

>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???

My "system" would not insist on anything.  People will no doubt make
contractual arrangements.

>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.

If someone makes the decision to risk bankruptcy in order to save
some money, that is his choice.  I am in no position to tell him that
having security is preferable to risking bankruptcy, and neither are
you.

>What of present government functions such as business advisory
>services and the like. Who would run these non-profit
>organisations?

Ha!  If these services serve a useful function, they can be made
profitable, and indeed there are for-profit business advisory
services.

--
	Daniel Lam			Phone 	+61 3 2822426
	Melbourne, Australia		Fax   	+61 3 2822490

In my opinion, the opinions expressed here are my personal opinions.