From: speednut@werple.apana.org.au (Mark Jose)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: The Lam philosophy (was Re: JJJ...)
Date: 15 Dec 1992 20:28:45 +1100
Organization: werple public-access unix, Melbourne
NNTP-Posting-Host: werple.apana.org.au

Original Message From: dyfl@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Daniel Y Lam)
 
>This is a rather wide task and I can do no better than give a very
>general answer.  Put simply, I envisage a society in which people's
>actions are co-ordinated by the market rather than the state.  Social
>bonds will be contractual rather than hegemonic in character.
>Furthermore, I favour an economic system based on private ownership
>of the means of production, commonly called capitalism.
 
Assuming a non-hegemonic state, who applies the order to all this
chaos, assuming chaos is an outcome - and after all that is all we can
do is assume, isn't it?
 
If the market "forces" are left to their own devices then the outcome
must surely be that the disadvantaged - either economically or
socially - will be outcasts of that society. If there is no money in
providing health care, then this industry would become crippled,
investment in new procedures, drugs and chemicals would be
non-existent. Furthermore, investment in non-realising enterprises
such as space exploration, analysis and exploitation would never occur.
 
 
>So far, all this is not inconsistent with the existence of a state
>and of (horror!) taxation.  This state would, however, not intervene
>in the operation of the market but confine itself to the protection
>of people and their property through its police and armed forces.
>This is the pure (classical) liberal position.
 
No government would be satisfied with just being in charge of the
police and military. Who is going to vote for a government, indeed why
bother voting at all as there would be no gain in doing so? Therefore
the government is totally severed from the people and consequently has
no real reason - moral or otherwise - to protect the citizens. Perhaps
it could then be corporatised and we would see this mythical country go
to war with whatever country it could defeat and make a profit out of.
Sounds like middle-ages stuff. Rape and pillage for me!!
 
 
>Now, there are those who believe that the state is ill-suited to
>carry out even this limited function, which can be better carried out
>by private entities.  Even police services and laws can be brought
>under the sway of the market.  This is the "anarcho-capitalist"
>position.  I was recently brought around to this stand.
 
See above.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Dare I say it but it does lead to ANARCHY!
 
 
>I'm more interested in advancing the liberal position for now, since
>frankly I can't see much hope for anarchism in the near future.
 
Try Somalia in 1992. If you like it then there is your chance to fully
indulge yourself. Hop on a Jet to England, then to Syria and "last stop" -
Somalia. Oh, don't forget your gun and a wad of US money. :-)
 
 
>I trust that by now I have convinced everybody I'm not joking.  I
>invite you to energetically assault the views I have stated.  As I
>said, I'm more interested in defending the non-anarchistic version of
>liberalism, but if you insist on talking about anarchy, I will
>oblige.
 
Seems like the two are fairly interchangeable. Being so extremely
liberal will lead to anarchy. But that is my opinion only.
 
>Care for the physically or intellectually disabled.  There are ample
>ways of dealing with this through voluntary means.  Families,
>friends, charitable agencies, compassionate people.  If people are so
>cruel and uncaring that they're not willing to help them, what makes
>you think they will support a government which makes them do it?
 
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.
 
 
>Pay for schooling for everybody.  I believe in an unhampered free
>market for education.  To put it bluntly, I don't believe in paying
>for schooling for everybody.  Consumers will make their choices about
>the value of education compared to other things, and the provision of
>education (and all other things) would be carried out accordingly.
 
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.
Heil Hitler!?
 
>I accept perfectly that some people benefit (in their own judgment,
>of course) from state action.  The difference is that in a market
>transaction, both parties benefit in the sense that they prefer the
>expected consequences of participating in the transaction to the
>expected consequences of not participating.
 
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.
 
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?
 
Your system has been around before and may come around again, but I
hope it is after I have gone.
 
Newsgroups: aus.politics