From: baruch@nynexst.com (Robert Baruch)
Subject: Re: Funding the govt.....(Re: Just a few...
Reply-To: baruch@nynexst.com
Organization: NYNEX Science & Technology, Inc
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 18:43:52 GMT

In article 1if5l5INNnlm@mirror.digex.com, dzik@access.digex.com (Joseph Dzikiewicz) writes:
> In article <1993Jan6.152831.27823@nynexst.com> baruch@nynexst.com writes:
> >
> >Insuring yourself against crime should make you warm and fuzzy, feeling safe.  
> 
> Some crimes cannot be insured against.  If I am murdered or killed by
> a drunk driver, insurance may help support my heirs, but it does not give
> me back my life.

I was thinking more along the lines of non-terminating crimes, where you're still
alive at the end.  If your life is threatened, then why can't you just tote some
firepower?  If you're killed in your sleep, then it shows that the protections
on your home weren't good enough.  If you're killed by a drunk driver, then it
shows that your car can't protect you well enough.

> 
> 
> >*I* decide how much *I* pay, and that's the extent of my protection.  Why do
> >you want to force *me* to pay for *your* protection (or mine, for that matter)?
> >Why does everyone have this urge to force other people to pay for things, when
> >they can pay for it voluntarily?  Answer me that!
> 
> The problem is, some forms of protection are communal.  
> 
> For example: Say that I am murdered tonight by a homocidal lunatic who
> is into killing.  Finding my murderer and bringing him to justice doesn't
> help me.  So why should I pay for a form of insurance that will make this
> happen.  However, taking the killer off the street helps everyone who still
> lives.  Therefore, since everyone who lives benefits, everyone who lives
> should pay for the service.  But you don't want the service, you say?
> How does anyone else get this particular service unless everyone gets
> it?

Do you think murders go unnoticed?  If a murder takes place in an area, don't
you think other people will try to take steps to prevent their own murder?
And there is no reason for an investigation company to go search out this
loony if they're paid to do it!

I must reiterate this:  I do not build utopias.  I can't hand you a perfect
world on a platter; I can only show you reality, and say "maybe this" and "maybe
that".  The beauty of the free market is that lots of solutions can be tried.

> 
> Second, another good method of preventing crime is to educate potential
> criminals.  This benefits everyone who lives in the same society as
> the potential criminal.  So shouldn't everyone pay for it?

Only those who want to pay for it.  If you can see benefit in attempting to
educate a criminial, then why don't you set up a corporation to do it?  Not
profitable, you say?  Then maybe that should tell you something.

> 
> That's the purpose of governments: to do things that are for the common
> good.  And governments do not allow people to opt out (by not paying
> taxes, for example) and still receive benefits.  Makes sense to me.

Governments also don't allow people to opt out and *not* receive benefits.  That
does *not* make sense to me.

Question:  If something "for the common good" is not profitable, should it
be done at all?  What exactly is the "common good"?  Should it benefit only
some people?  All, but in different amounts?  In same amounts?  

> 
> 
> As another purpose of governments: how do you regulate shared resources?
> The example that I am thinking of is the airwaves.  If every radio
> station tried to use the same frequency, it would be impossible to
> have broadcast radio.  In the absence of government regulation, 
> anybody who could afford a transmitter can be a broadcaster.  Therefore,
> voluntary groups of broadcasters regulating themselves would not work,
> because there's always some jerk willing to mess things up for
> everyone.  (Witness the number of people out there happy to spread
> computer viruses.)

What is wrong in setting up a corporation to handle "policing" the spectrum?
Broadcasters which are registered with the corporation pay the corporation
to monitor their slice of the spectrum and to track down pirates.

Remember, I am not the free market; I can't give you the best solution.  I can
point out possible solutions, but the free market must find the best one.

> 
> 
> More to the point, you assume that you, as an individual, have absolute
> ownership of something.  However, that is not the case.  Individuals
> do not have absolute ownership of anything: the government has partial
> property rights to everything via emminent domain.


My dictionary defines "eminent domain" as: "The right of a government
to appropriate private property for public use, usually with compensation
to the owner."

You _condone_ this?!
>
> The government has
> agreed to not exercise its rights as long as you fulfill certain
> obligations to it, including paying taxes and not breaking the law.

Right.  You obey the laws, and the government doesn't take your property
away.  And you think this is reasonable?

> If you don't like that arrangement, you might try to find somewhere
> lacking in government.  Might I suggest Somalia?

I enjoy more developed countries, thank you.

> 
> Which leads to my final point.  Objectivism is a utopian world-view,
> and like most utopian world-views depends on the good will of those
> who live in its society.  A capitalist anarchy in which everyone
> pays only for what he wants and must pay for his individual protection
> does not lead to Rand's Atlantis.  It leads to Somalia or Beirut.

I have seen others say that Objectivism is a realist world-view.

--Rob
> 
> 
> 




Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism