From: fofp@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes)
Newsgroups: uk.misc
Subject: Re: Transport subsidies - Was: Car Parking
Date: 17 Dec 92 16:21:07 GMT
Distribution: uk
Organization: Edinburgh University

cah@cs.bham.ac.uk (Ceri Hopkins) writes:


>>>>>> On 16 Dec 92 13:33:08 GMT, fofp@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes) said:

>[Rigged housing market exposition deleted]

>FoFP> Libertarian solution: choice. Ask people "would you, or would you not
>FoFP> like to donate money to help people own a home, even if you haven't got
>FoFP> one?"

>FoFP> We've argued transport and health into the ground. Let's see some
>FoFP> statists defend this one.

>I admit to having skipped a lot of the recent postings, but what
>exactly is this liberatarian solution [sic] of choice here, choice
>there, choice everywhere?

Yep, abolish mortgage interest relief (though if taxes were abolished,
this wouldn't strictly be necessary) or make it voluntary as above. Also
remove government controls on whether people can build houses on their
own land. It's between them and their neighbours. That way there's be a
free market in housing, house prices would be lower, and there'd be less
homeless, and a lot less waste of capital in the economy.

>Can I choose not to contribute to the armed
>forces and accept that they will not play any part in defending me?
>Sorry if this is just another example of a thoroughly discussed
>reducto ad absurdum tangent.

As I've said, I'm not an anarchist and I think the government should be
there to protect people's rights through police, army and a justice
system.

I accept that anarchists would disagree and I'd advocate that they be
allowed to contract out. What that'd mean though is that they'd have no
official protection from fraud, theft, or assault. I'd personallt regard
that as dangerous and I suspect few would in fact contract out.

>I agree with many of your arguments (including this one on housing)
>but fail to see how you can say this constitutes a solution.

It['s a solution in that it allows people the freedom to choose and
allows the economy the chance to provide those things people want
without being forced to provide things that  they don't want.

>[later still]
>>I've never seen such suggestions. I have seen him state that company directors
>>will have not ltd company protection. That doesn't prevent companies behaving
>>in a disreputable manner. Money is power, and they'll have more power under
>>the schemes fofp (and now you) advocate.

>FoFP> Money is only power if you can *buy* political influence. When the only
>FoFP> political influence to be had is the right to protect you, I doubt the
>FoFP> companies will be buying.

>Again I'm missing something here. Can you send me the FoFP FAQ? IS it
>available by FTP? Money is power if you have a post to appoint and a
>long queue of the unemployed seeking work.

That's what is called "competition" and if many qualified applicants
were after the work, the price of it would likely be reduced until the
number of applicants diminished.

>Have you addressed this
>along with health and transport?

Just did. I'm being asked to address a lot of "problems" though. How
come none of my opponents are willing to defend problems in the system
that they advocate?

>Ceri

Cheers

FoFP
Newsgroups: uk.misc