From: speednut@werple.apana.org.au (Mark Jose)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: The Lam philosophy (was Re: JJJ...)
Date: 23 Dec 1992 11:55:37 +1100
Organization: werple public-access unix, Melbourne
NNTP-Posting-Host: werple.apana.org.au

Original Message From: dyfl@kbs.citri.edu.au (Daniel Lam)
 
 
>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.
 
Changing tack a little, what would happen if a competitor setup
another major road parallel to an existing one so as to compete and
take the market share of the existing road owner, and one of these
eventually collapses (uneconomical?) - you then have a major wasted
resource. Perhaps it could be sold off and returned to pasture?
 
Imagine also, having to stop all the time you change from one owner
to another and pay the toll. Soon would make travelling ridiculous.
Also who would maintain the country roads which are sometimes
gravelled and have very little use? These are the roads that
are used by the farmer and are hardly expected to yield a good
return.
 
>>Hey, you off to Somalia to see how market forces work? :-)
>
>I don't see much market forces in Somalia.
 
No that's true, but anarchy prevails there and from this should stem
your ideals. After all to start your ideal economy on the basis of an
existing economy would be heresy.
 
 
>>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?
 
If the money's there the will is there.
 
Can you guarantee (what I've stated) would not be a result of your
commercial society?
 
>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?
 
How did you get to know the theories you now espouse? Surely through
another educating you? What happens when economic circumstances
prevent you from having such an education?
 
How can education return a profit unless the companies sponsor a
person and have sole right over his labour. I don't like the idea of
that anymore than I like the idea of free-market education.
 
>>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.
 
It would not be what people decide are your rights but what the
economy states is your rights. By your system, the economy would only
deem as your rights those which you are able to purchase. Insufficient
purchasing power means insufficient rights. With law enforcement being
dependant on the dollar your rights could not be guaranteed. Indeed
with no statute law the very basis for policing is removed.
 
Your statement "...no amount of rights can conjure wealth out of
nothing..." is naive to the human condition. Without rights, people
are unable to operate under life's parameters. Without the knowledge
that you have the right to strike or the right to have recreation
leave, people become enslaved to your regime.
[They are examples only]
 
>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.
 
Exactly. And yet you cannot believe that the furtherance of this
unequal education is that the rich get more knowledge and the poor
become enslaved to what they know. Education has allowed people to
drop social classes and expand their horizons, to learn more of the
world and how it operates.
 
With the poor unable to pay for the same standard of education, is it
not feasible that the education standard of the poor will remain at a
level where they are subservient and unable to challenge the rich?
They therefore become labour fodder for the rich's industry.
 
>>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.
 
You are right, but still you evade the issue. My economic means could
dictate whether I live or die. Pity you if you are left destitute
under your system.
 
>>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.
 
So when you get run over by a bus, you must have your lawyer and
accountant on hand to go over the contract before entering the
ambulance. While travelling in the ambulance, you must decide which
hospital is more cost-effective and which offers you the better
services. All the time, contracts are being formed. Hmmmm.
 
>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.
 
So you would prefer to die than spend your money. This is an oxymoron.
I make no such value judgement as you seem to do. You say that it is
better for them to make up their own mind and I say that the majority
of people the WORLD around have decided that they will forego medical
costs in order to save themselves. This judgement was not made by
(nor you) but by mankind as a whole. Therefore your whole reasoning or
basis for argument is flawed. People DO NOT wish to be driven by some
unseen market mechanism - they want to be able to live their lives in
relative security (which cannot be guaranteed by your theory) and have
"safety-nets" around them to enable the social cohesion that has
existed since man stepped on terra firma.
 
You cannot take the emotion out of people and replace it with something
else (in your case "market forces") - many have tried and have failed.
 
>>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.
 
Oh there are are there? Which ones are they? To run something at a
profit seems to suggest to you that it is viable and good. I could run
a nuclear power-station for profit and dump all the heavy water into
the ocean? Who would stop me, after all I am profitable. Oh you could
set up an EPA (for profit) but why should I listen to their dictates.
If the market (uneducated labourers for example) want to accept heavy
water as a by-product of their need for power then it is not my
responsibility; I am only here to make money.
 
How do you supply water to people? Assuming you supply water to people
in order to make a profit, what does that guarantee? What happens when
water runs out, do you sue the water supplier? Great consolation that
is when you are DYING for a drink.
 
Newsgroups: aus.politics