From: dyfl@kbs.citri.edu.au (Daniel Lam)
Subject: Re: The Lam philosophy (was Re: JJJ...)
Organization: Collaborative Information Technology Research Institute
Date: 16 Dec 92 03:36:39 GMT

speednut@werple.apana.org.au (Mark Jose) writes:
>So the judicial system would be under market control. The gaols are
>run by company X, who requires more inmates to use as slaves to be
>employed on company Y's project. Judge A accepts a bigger "bonus"
>for sentencing more people to longer durations in order that company X
>can maintain a steady work-force.

It is well known that productivity of slave labour is inferior to
that of free labour.  No selfish capitalist would want to keep
slaves.

>The police force enforces its own speed limits and other self made
>laws in order to both pay for its own operating but also make a good
>profit on the side. Things like variable speed limits that change
>every 20 seconds are designed to catch speeding motorists. Don't pay
>your fines, and company X (there's that company again) pays the police
>force to incarcerate you for defaulting.

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.

>Dare I say it but it does lead to ANARCHY!

Well, it's not called anarchism for nothing.

>Seems like the two are fairly interchangeable. Being so extremely
>liberal will lead to anarchy. But that is my opinion only.

It is mine too.

>If indeed it does turn out that people care for their disabled
>themselves, then what happens when the parent dies? Who is going to be
>burdened with this person? Why should they when no compensation is
>being paid to them. Even now people do not farm intellectually disabled
>people out to institutions because it is not economic to keep them but
>it is too emotionally draining. Your system does not afford such a
>luxury. If the person cannot cope then he/she may abuse the disabled or
>kill them. This would be the hard facts of your society.

What makes you think governments are more compassionate than ordinary
mortals?

>Assuming that people maintain the same desire and need to be educated,
>then the costs of this would mean that those on the lower scale would
>not be able to afford such things as a tertiary education. This then
>leads to a distortion of the classes. You would end up with a slave
>class (uneducated and therefore un-informed) and the master class.

Oh, come on.  Anyone without a tertiary education is a slave?  You
have a much too high opinion of our universities.  The provision of
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.

>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?

>What if you paid your health insurance but the health industry has
>just experienced huge losses due to failed investments in Puerto Rican
>Rhinestones? Suddenly they have to lay off workers, and increase the
>price of their services. The increase is not covered by insurance so
>they only cover you for a couple of days in hospital. Well you have a
>heart attack and require at least 2 weeks in hospital. Your insurance
>only covers you for 1 week so you are discharged. You suffer another
>heart attack - too bad that your 1 week per year insurance allocation
>for heart attacks has been use! Oh well I suppose you could always
>bankrupt yourself in order to pay for the treatment. But what happens
>if you die leaving your wife and kids in the street?

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.

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

In my opinion, the opinions expressed here are my personal opinions.
Newsgroups: aus.politics