The Libertarian and Anarchist Society- Part II by SignyM

Keep the Shiny side up

From the previous thread.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I guess I'd like to see some answers from people who are proposing their society as THE answer to all of life's injustices.

First off, no one is proposing "...their society as THE answer to all of life's injustices" just as another attempt to have less injustices.

As to people with disabilities who are unable to take care of themselves here's a couple of ideas.

An association of the parents of children with such disabilities, and other concerned parties, which solicits contributions for their care and manages and provides that care. Could be to association members, or to everyone, We got things like that now.

Private long-term health insurance for older folks is always an option, and once again there are private organizations who can provide assistance. Care facilities might want to take in a number of indigent as a public service or for good will value. With your life being your own, suicide would not be illegal, and some folks might select euthinasia.

Libertarian economic theory posits that there will be less poor, because there will be more money in private hands to invest and make even more, and that anyone can get a share. Also implied, if not openly stated, is the thought that government needs poor people to justify its existance.

People would fall through the cracks in a Libertarian system, just like they do now, but the belief is that there will be less of them.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 9:38 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Instead of discussing these issues in broad terms, I propose talking about what we would eliminate from the current setup.

Licensing.

Why do I need a dog, cat, concealed carry, marriage, business, alcohol sales, animal massage, esthetician, fishing guide, kick boxer, private investigator, shopkeeper, travel agent, or wrestler license?

Google your state's licensing department and see how many things you have to have some sort of license to own or do. Surely this could be trimmed down a bit.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 9:40 AM

On the question of the beat cop. They tend to be the first responders to incidents and sometimes can be there before the incident gets too out of control. They also tend to be among the first to arrive immediately after an incident, when you want someone to tend to the victims and secure the scene and the evidence it contains. I suspect just CSI style investigation would be a lot harder if unsecured crime scenes were messed with by passers by. I also know of people that would have been dead had the police not been there to take immediate basic medical action in advance of paramedics.

That said if part of some future citizenship test included basic medical procedures like CPR (along with mandatory gun training since I assume we are still talking about handing out guns) some of those issues might be alleviated.

In short, the value of the cop on the street is less deterrent (though it does deter) but more rapid response to situations.

As for direct democracy, that can still be played with. There was recently a proposal for a new road here in Dallas where the proposition was worded such that voting "yes" was actually a vote AGAINST the road. That let the road folks push it through when before they would have lost.

In addition there is the problem of the passion of the majority. Imagine we has a domestic Muslim suicide bomber kill a bunch of people in a crowded mall. Immediately afterwards when the "soccer moms" and "NASCAR dads" are watching the coverage for the 300th time you could probably table a "round up all the Muslims and throw them in camps" initiative and have it pass. Is that a good thing?

Back 200+ years ago your founders decided on a representative democracy in part because they didn't trust the people not to make dumb decisions in moments of crisis. If people today were really smart enough and politically savvy enough to know the issues and vote responsibly in a direct democracy then they would not have elected the current batch of idiots.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 9:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Instead of discussing these issues in broad terms, I propose talking about what we would eliminate from the current setup.

Licensing.

Why do I need a dog, cat, concealed carry, marriage, business, alcohol sales, animal massage, esthetician, fishing guide, kick boxer, private investigator, shopkeeper, travel agent, or wrestler license?

Google your state's licensing department and see how many things you have to have some sort of license to own or do. Surely this could be trimmed down a bit.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

My guess? Either at some time someone abused one of these positions and when it came to light the public decided that "something must be done" (see my note on passions of the majority) OR they preform some function for which the local government has some other regulations and the license exists to ensure that those regulations are followed. In the case of boxers I suspect it's so they can ban people that bite other peoples ears off in the ring (etc..)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 10:02 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Licensing.

I know of several people who had manicures or pedicures from shops that didn't follow basic hygiene and wound up with stubborn (and in one case disfiguring) infections.

You COULD propose a voluntary standards board, but it would have to be by a group that was not dependent on any single type of business (for example, the Cosmetology Approval Society should not be directed and funded by cosmetologists. I've worked with both gummint and private lab approvals, and the most meaningful approvals so far are from the gummint.)

AFA "the passions of the majority".... no proposal should be voted on until at least six months had passed since its introduction.

AFA the "beat cop" is concerned... we need rapid response, but do we really need them rolling around in cars all the time?

--------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 10:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

AFA "the passions of the majority".... no proposal should be voted on until at least six months had passed since its introduction.

What happens if you don't have 6 months? US merchant ships are being attacked and looted by Somali pirates (I know you could argue that it's the company's business or the ships should be armed but Jefferson -- hero of the Libertarian element in society started America's first foreign war on this issue.) If Americans are being killed, do you really wait 6 months? What if the mainland US is attacked?

Quote:

AFA the "beat cop" is concerned... we need rapid response, but do we really need them rolling around in cars all the time?

--------------------------------
Always look upstream.

Well that's part of them being able to respond rapidly is that they are already in the area. I suppose that you could have them park and wait but that doesn't gain you much (other than you burn less petrol) and while they are cruising they at lest give you some fringe deterrent effect. Consider it an additional bonus rather than the prime reason.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 10:17 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

CTS WROTE

Quote:
OK, Signy, now to your question, "What about the feeble?"

I can sympathize with the question, because I was disabled for 10 years. At worst times, there is no doubt that I would have died had it not been for those who took care of me. I understand about completely being at the mercy of others. The question is, should a libertarian society force its citizens to take care of the feeble, whether they want to or not? Obviously, the answer for a libertarian (let alone an anarchist) is, no hell no. No force. Lack of action is not an active violation of someone's sovereignty.

In countries where no one is forced to take care of the feeble, the feeble are still taken care of--by family, by community. Sure, some fall through the cracks and die, but some do that even in socialist societies. Do more fall in the cracks where there is no social net? I haven't seen any research on this, but just from my travels and living around the world, my personal opinion is no. I have some experience as a social worker working with the poorest of the poor in the USA. The idea of a social net to catch the feeble is very attractive in theory, but in practice, that net is full of large, large holes. In my experience, that "net" is an illusion, like everything else govt provides. In some ways, it even hurts the feeble; people are less inclined to be charitable when they think there is already a net to catch those who fall (diffusion of responsibility), and it keeps the feeble "caught" in the net so that they are less likely to ever be free of the net. Voluntary family and charity nets are more responsive and empowering, and much less wasteful. As a former social worker, helping the feeble, both financial and physical, is a big issue with me. Social services is the least of my complaints about govt. But my opinion remains that voluntary charity is in all ways superior to govt charity.

A society IMHO is only as good as the care it affords to most "feeble" members. So I can point to Somalia where "the feeble" (women and children) are dying like flies... much worse than when there was government. And I can point to socialized Europe, where infant mortality and life expectancy are much better than in non-socialized countries. So the evidence seems to be that some government is better than no government, and socialized government is best. I know you've "seen" the feeble or helpless taken care of by family members, and it's a heart-warming sight, but the numbers don't seem to bear out your vision.

BTW- Credit where credit is due. The question was posed by Rue.

See? I'm a poet and I don't even knowit.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 10:38 AM

I don't want to hijack the thread but is the future necessarily the nation state at all? If you think about it the building blocks of society has always been based on geography and religion. People lived in small groups that were mostly relatives, then larger groups that were groups of families and this built up to city states and finally nation states. However for most of that time the majority of people didn't travel much. One of my grandparents has a distinctive surname and so we can see that for more than 400 years our ancestors lived within 30 miles of my parent's house.

Geography was important and the people you knew were people that you knew a long time. My mother almost always explains who someone is by recounting at least 3 generations of genealogy, there are families known to be bad sorts there are families you can make deals with using a handshake, people know you on the street. Maybe that's the kind of world where Fremland could actually work, except we don't need guns there. The point is that people used to be related to each other by kin, by religion and physical geography.

I live 5000 miles door to door from my parents house, 100x the distance that most of my ancestors managed in the past 400 years. I have no idea who lives next door, or down the street or across the road. I have no way of assessing how trustworthy any of them are. Sad as it may seem I know most of you better than I know my neighbors, I buy things online from people i don't know and never met on the basis of feedback given by previous customers, some of my online connections have become as real as some of my real relationships.

So here's the point. In the past states were limited by geography, by the people you could physically meet, get to know and could communicate with. On a small scale they could be kin but by the time you reach national level your bond to them was principly language, culture and physical location. The internet lets you find people that more closely match your own worldview irrespective of their physical location. How long will it be before a person's group associations are made more strongly with his internet peers than with those with whom he only shares a physical location?

In addition, if large corporations are effectively landless states, will a time come when that is where a person's principle loyalty lies? To the employer that provides for him as a state would? Is William Gibson's Zaibatsu the next stage of social development?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 10:42 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Licensing.

I know of several people who had manicures or pedicures from shops that didn't follow basic hygiene and wound up with stubborn (and in one case disfiguring) infections.

And were the shops licensed? Who knows?

Hygiene in a manicure shop should be pretty easily observable by anyone who wants to take a cursory look before buying. Shouldn't be hard to find what to look for on the web, and any shop that's up to snuff shouldn't mind you asking. If you went into a licensed manicure shop and the place was filthy, would you expect the license to protect you? Licensing does not abrogate your responsibility to be aware of and protect your own safety.

An independent private certifying organization is also an option. There are lots of these now, from Underwriters Labs to the Snell Foundation. You can't go racing with any reputable auto or motorcycle body without a helmet that is Snell certified.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 10:43 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

reposted

5. "All rights are derived from the bedrock principle of individual sovereignty. All citizens are sovereigns of the state."
Now here is where HKC, FremD, SergeantX, CTS and LeGuin have divergent opinions, especially when it comes to children, parents and school.

I'll start with LeGuin first b/c hers is the most completely thought out, and, b/c I also presume it's HKC's position. In her society (which I have to say she stacks quite carefully to give the best chance of working, down to a new language) families stay together out of mutual agreement. Children who are old enough to find their way can live in the 'dorm' and eat at the 'refectory'. In her vision, there is some kind of 'care' consistently available for very young children. (While she doesn't state it explicitly care is either given by someone who likes to spend their spare time doing that kind of thing, or by voluntary selection from a 'worklist' of basic social tasks.) In her vision there is also no school - everything is open, children hang out where it's interesting and people teach children what they're doing if / when the mood is on them to teach.
How do these children learn to read, write and do math ? A very few will pick that up from general exposure, but they are difficult enough tasks for most children that it will require some concentrated effort on somebody's part. How this happens isn't clear.

Frem's answer as best I can tell is private school. What I get from his posts is that 'public school' is all about killing the spirit, and that that is exactly what's happening to his niece. And that's why public schools should be abolished.
Personally, I don't see how private schools would fix that. Let's take the situation of his niece. If the parents are bad enough to pick a public school on its spirit-crushing ability, why would giving them a choice of a private school (or tutor) that they would chose for the exact same result be any different ? Or if the idea of mandatory school is the issue, how would home schooling be any better ?
His other answer as I understood it (and which I hope he was dissuaded from) is giving kids a piece to pack. How would this NOT create pathological children in large numbers ? Feeling burdened ? Put upon ? Misunderstood ? Don't like your vegetables ? You can solve all your problems with the equalizer !
Yes definitely ! there are children - too many - who are victimized sexually, physically and emotionally. But taking away any public interest in children's welfare and turning homes into inviolate gun-soaked hellholes doesn't count as an answer with me.

SergeantX as best I can tell seems to think there is no justification for public interest in children's welfare. Period. Now he doesn't say so explicitly but my impression is that a family (parents and children) is a private unit on which nothing can intrude, until it ends up in rape, death or beatings which leave permanent bodily damage, which are then crimes. Though this sounds like FremD's nightmare.

Now as best as I can tell (and I'm sure CTS will loudly complain that I'm picking on her no matter what I say) schooling is all about choice. No schooling ? Fine. Home schooling ? Great. Private schooling ? No problem. Whatever floats your boat and whatever you can afford.
It's all about the parents choice and the price. Should you decide to deny your children an education it's all good. Should you chose a madrassa that's great, the curriculum is your choice. Should you be unable to afford one for your children, it's all good too. Though again this does all seem to be about the parents rights, abilities and prerogatives, and not so much about the children.

So, whose vision do we follow ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 10:50 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

so- govt licensing not a necessity.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 10:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Licensing.

I know of several people who had manicures or pedicures from shops that didn't follow basic hygiene and wound up with stubborn (and in one case disfiguring) infections.

And were the shops licensed? Who knows?

Hygiene in a manicure shop should be pretty easily observable by anyone who wants to take a cursory look before buying. Shouldn't be hard to find what to look for on the web, and any shop that's up to snuff shouldn't mind you asking. If you went into a licensed manicure shop and the place was filthy, would you expect the license to protect you? Licensing does not abrogate your responsibility to be aware of and protect your own safety.

An independent private certifying organization is also an option. There are lots of these now, from Underwriters Labs to the Snell Foundation. You can't go racing with any reputable auto or motorcycle body without a helmet that is Snell certified.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

I think this is a question of enforcement. If you need the license to operate the business then if you enforce the licensing no license === no business.

If you know you are going to get random inspections, if you know that failing those inspections means the end of your business then the theory goes you will comply with the cleanliness regulation. How well that works depends on how aggressively the licensing body polices the licensees and what powers they have. A voluntary body is just that, voluntary being part of it or not part of it only really effects your public profile, because you can still be in business if you are not a member. Also most voluntary organizations rely on member dues to continue to operate, they have a vested interest NOT to kick out dues paying members.

Here in Dallas one of the local news channels has a mole in the public health department. When a restaurant is about to be cited on health grounds they try to send a hidden camera into the kitchens.

What you see is always the same. Up front where the customer sits is clean and tidy, out back in the kitchens it's filthy, with rat droppings, roaches and other nasties. The idea that by looking at something you can necessarily make an informed customer decision is meaningless. However, once the inspector cites a restaurant it's out of business until it cleans up it's act.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 10:58 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"As to people with disabilities who are unable to take care of themselves here's a couple of ideas.

An association ... private insurance ... fewer poor."

In most primitive cultures taking care of the feeble is considered a basic social function. You are proposing a society even more primitive than those.

Not only that - by the sheer effect of a profit system - government programs are actually much more cost-effective. Private insurance has a 30% overhead, government-run healthcare 2%. If you want more money doing the actual task at hand, government programs are the way to go.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 11:23 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Licensing.

Why do I need a dog,

Do you really want some unlicensed dog driving your car?

I understand some licensing makes sense. You license drivers to make sure folk know the rules of the road. You license marriages because of the legal implications of a joint household.

Pets...make no sense (except that a licensed pet can be returned to you if lost...but the chips work better and cost less).

Hunting licenses makes sense because orderly administration of public lands is good for everyone...but you should not need a license to hunt and fish your own land.

I think licensing of many things for administrative convenience makes good sense, but NOT as a revenue source. Thats does not seem right. Same thing for various permits. It makes sense to require a permit for large scale construction, but why require a permit if you hire a couple fellas to finish your basement. Getting a permit to hold a parade on a public street makes good sense, cause of traffic and such, but why require one to sell wine in your resturant?

And why give James Bond a license to kill? I mean he's an agent, is he really going to be on the job and killing folk only to have some cop come along and find he's killing on an expired license (Minor Misdemeanor is Ohio).

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 11:33 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Yes, licensing like Geezer said.

Licensing should be seriously reconsidered in most things. Alabama is not that bad, but it’s not getting better either. Just since I was a kid, several things that I used to do quite freely, I now need a state license for. Although I have to admit that I’m not completely against it in every area. Take fishing for instance. At first I was incensed by the state making me get a license for fishing, something that I’ve always done as a way of getting away from stuff like that, but later I warmed up to it, when I realized that the reason was the need for revenue to run the Department of Conservation and Nature Resources pertaining to the upkeep of natural freshwater resources. Now as a guy who is very big on environmentalism and conservation and very small on taxes and government involvement, it occurred to me that licensing fisherman was the fairest way to address the needed revenue for the conservation of our lakes and rivers. Now I happily pay for a license every year, whether I fish that year or not, because I like the idea of paying for government without taxation.

Another thing that I would like to see us get away from, for similar reason, is public school. Why should someone who doesn’t send their children to public school or have children to send, pay for public school? Property taxes keep going up and up and tuition for private school keeps going up and up and so if you have children in private school, you get smacked twice for education cost. What the hell!? Some would argue that everyone has to send their children to school, so education is actually a common issue, which might hold some water if public schools were any good. Now public schools around here are actually pretty good - the best in the state actually - and in many cases as good or better then the local private schools, but in most of the state, public schools are shit, driving Alabama to the bottom of the national list in public education. So if you want your children in get a good education in Alabama, outside of the Huntsville area, you need to send them to private school and pay twice for education.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 12:14 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
In most primitive cultures taking care of the feeble is considered a basic social function. You are proposing a society even more primitive than those.

How is a voluntary organization to take care of the feeble not a social function? Social function does not have to mean governmental function. If people in a primitive tribe can recognize that they have an individual responsibility to take care of the feeble, without government coercion, why not the people in a technologically advanced society.

Also remember, sometimes taking care of the elderly in primitive societies was, "Nanook, help me get Grandma onto the ice floe."

Quote:
Not only that - by the sheer effect of a profit system - government programs are actually much more cost-effective. Private insurance has a 30% overhead, government-run healthcare 2%. If you want more money doing the actual task at hand, government programs are the way to go.

I'll have to check but I suspect that a good bit or private insurer's overhead costs are due to goverment requirements. Also, is cost-effectiveness the prime goal of healthcare, or is results-effectiveness?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 12:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So I can point to Somalia where "the feeble" (women and children) are dying like flies... much worse than when there was government. And I can point to socialized Europe, where infant mortality and life expectancy are much better than in non-socialized countries. So the evidence seems to be that some government is better than no government, and socialized government is best.

Neither your evidence or mine is worth anything. Mine is anecdotal, and yours is correlational. (There are so many confounders that can explain why people in Somalia die like flies and why Europeans don't, besides political system.)

The fact is we don't know if feeble people die in significantly greater numbers where there is no social net than where there is. I guessed no, and you guessed yes. But in the end, they are just guesses.

And again society can act independently of government. So absence of legislation does NOT mean absence of societal action. See, this is where the "new paradigm" and new mindset/culture comes in. People can and do act, love, live, and help without government edicts.

--------------------------
The greatest challenge to any thinker is stating the problem in a way that will allow a solution.
--Bertrand Russell

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 12:39 PM

I posted a lot more on this thread before I realized it was moved.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=32253

--------------------------
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
--Bertrand Russell

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 12:43 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

CTS- Except in Somalia we have a direct "before and after" comparison. The worst violence was just before and after 1991. Even with the level of corruption and disorganization that surrounded a dying tyrrany, women and children were STILL better off. So if people wanna crow about the cellphone service being so much better than "before" (using the before and after modle) they have to take their lumps on child and maternal mortality too. I bring this up because you specifically mentioned your husband's trips to this country, and HE seemed to think things were "better". But then, perhaps he really only does see the route between the airport and the hotel, I don't know how deep his knowledge of the country is.

Quote:
The fact is we don't know if feeble people die in significantly greater numbers where there is no social net than where there is. I guessed no, and you guessed yes. But in the end, they are just guesses.

Baloney. I can show you not only concurrent comparisons (USA/ Europe) but also striking "before and after" comparisons (Russia, Somalia).

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 1:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

I'll have to check but I suspect that a good bit or private insurer's overhead costs are due to goverment requirements. Also, is cost-effectiveness the prime goal of healthcare, or is results-effectiveness?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Well they also have to make a profit as well, that was why folks invested in the business not to make a social statement but for the money.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 1:15 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Well they also have to make a profit as well, that was why folks invested in the business not to make a social statement but for the money.

If you're buying healthcare or health insurance on the open market do you look for the company that's cheapest, or the one which provides the better results? Libertarian theory is that the fact that you have free choice between vendors forces them to be results-oriented, or they don't get your money. And lots of companies, if not to make a social statement then at least to get social approval, support and sponsor charitable and non-profit enterprises. Support for PBS comes to mind.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 1:29 PM

No, my husband's not been to Somalia. (As an aside, since this is the second comment about being limited in his route, my husband is a "hobo" traveler. That means he wanders around in his backpack and bicycle way, way, way off the beaten path. And he usually stayed in "hotels" that cost 5 cents a night, with a chamber pot for a toilet.) He's spent the most time in Egypt, Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Central African Republic, and the DR Congo.

I am not well educated on the Somalia situation, but there are limits to comparing it with a libertarian society. It is a different situation when a tyranny protects a vulnerable, unarmed population, and then deserts them to fend for themselves, unarmed. A libertarian state would have the tradition and the culture of self-protection and responsibility for protecting the weak, that Somalia didn't have.

--------------------------
Seven social sins: politics without principles, wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, and worship without sacrifice.
--Mahatma Gandhi, a list closing an article in Young India (22 October 1925)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 1:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Baloney. I can show you not only concurrent comparisons (USA/ Europe) but also striking "before and after" comparisons (Russia, Somalia).

Okay. Show me, please.

--------------------------
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?
--Robert Heinlein, "Doctor Pinero" in Life-Line (1939)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 1:40 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
A libertarian state would have the tradition and the culture of self-protection and responsibility for protecting the weak that Somalia didn't have.

I see nothing in CTSLand that would make this so, as there seems to be no mechanism to make it so. You would indeed have to have an complete "paradigm shift", but that shift seems to be heading in the direction of self protection only.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 1:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Well they also have to make a profit as well, that was why folks invested in the business not to make a social statement but for the money.

If you're buying healthcare or health insurance on the open market do you look for the company that's cheapest, or the one which provides the better results? Libertarian theory is that the fact that you have free choice between vendors forces them to be results-oriented, or they don't get your money. And lots of companies, if not to make a social statement then at least to get social approval, support and sponsor charitable and non-profit enterprises. Support for PBS comes to mind.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

I completely understand. However the health insurance industry as run in America does not seem to be a free market. If it were I should be offered the same plans and benefits as a single payer as a person in a group plan and that is simply not the case. We get insurance though my wife's company, which is small and does not offer that great a plan (== large deductibles) we keep it so we have a method of payment in case of chronic illness or catastrophic injuries. It is not a great plan but I know how much she pays and how much her company pays into their group plan. I as an individual not associated with a company should be able to purchase the same plan on the same terms but I can not. This is especially surprising given the relatively poor level of cover.

In the UK where health insurance is rare, I can shop around and get a good deal because the plans are marketed more towards individuals and small business. My friends in the UK that have insurance as a higher level of service than the basics given by the NHS pay less than we do per year and have few deductibles for what is a first rate, first world service.

If i could get parity with the service offered to my friends in europe in US$ then I would be satisfied.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 2:05 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/2006-23-20.cfm

"Glowing economic statistics show that Russia is in the midst of an oil-fueled boom, but the life expectancy of its citizens remained woefully low, the nation's top statistician said Tuesday.

... as Russia's financial health is improving, the physical health of its citizens continues to be on the decline.

Russia's population dropped by 0.5 percent, or 680,000 people, to 142.8 million last year, Sokolin said. And the average life span of the Russian male is now just 58 the level to which it dropped in the social turmoil that followed the default just over seven years ago. "Nothing has changed with regard to life expectancy," he said."

Among the causes for the decline in population, which has been dropping steadily since the 1991 Soviet collapse, were reduced birth rates and life expectancy, caused by increased poverty, alcoholism and emigration."

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 2:08 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

http://www.russiaprofile.org/page.php?pageid=CDI+Russia+Profile+List&a
rticleid=3408

"there have been a number of articles in the Russian press in the last few weeks dealing with the dire consequences that are predicted to result from the current low birth rate and high death rate in the Russian population. These rates have been attributed to a number of factors including unhealthy lifestyles, stress, and capitalism."

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 2:21 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Social function does not have to mean governmental function. If people in a primitive tribe can recognize that they have an individual responsibility to take care of the feeble ..."

It does mean it has to be a societal function rather than an individual function, which you seem to confuse.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 2:37 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Nah, it's not government paperwork, it really is due to 'for profit' medicine.

"Our biggest HMOs keep 20%, even 25%, of premiums for their overhead and profit; Canada's NHI has 1% overhead and even Medicare takes less than 4%. And HMOs inflict mountains of paperwork on physicians and hospitals. The average US hospital spends one quarter of its budget on billing and administration, nearly twice the average in Canada."

"Administrative costs account for 25 percent of health care spending, but little is known about the portion attributable to billing and insurance-related (BIR) functions. ... Overall, BIR represents 20–22 percent of privately insured spending in California acute care settings."

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 2:41 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"In the UK where health insurance is rare, I can shop around and get a good deal because the plans are marketed more towards individuals and small business. My friends in the UK that have insurance as a higher level of service than the basics given by the NHS pay less than we do per year and have few deductibles for what is a first rate, first world service.

If i could get parity with the service offered to my friends in europe in US$ then I would be satisfied."

In an odd way you're making the case for government as a competitor in a market system, leading to better products at lower prices.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 3:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"In the UK where health insurance is rare, I can shop around and get a good deal because the plans are marketed more towards individuals and small business. My friends in the UK that have insurance as a higher level of service than the basics given by the NHS pay less than we do per year and have few deductibles for what is a first rate, first world service.

If i could get parity with the service offered to my friends in europe in US$ then I would be satisfied."

In an odd way you're making the case for government as a competitor in a market system, leading to better products at lower prices.

That's exactly what it is, a correction of a market imbalance. Let's look at a typical consumer market transaction, like buying a TV or a car or a house. There exists within the market a number of competitors each of which have trade offs of price and quality. The consumer has an array of choices, assuming a savvy customer and hungry competition prices will fall as suppliers sacrifice unit profit for volume. Try to sell the same class of service to a customer at a higher price with no obvious advantage and you will fail, it's a buyers market.

Health care though is different. If I don't get the deal I want on that laptop I can wait until the market delivers the price performance point I'm interested in. With healthcare if you wait you could die. Faced with death people will pay what is asked without haggling, there is no downward pressure on cost, people don't tend to shop around for doctors (though interestingly I know a guy who is trying to make that work...) Put simply there is no mechanism to force prices down at the consumer level so in effect costs remain high.

What the NHS does is put a volume player in that market which means that you can no longer charge what the market will bare because there is an alternative. Thus the market goes from one where the patient is willing to pay any price back to one where he shops on a cost/benefit basis as he would for any other commodity. So even if you did everything privately and never set foot in an NHS facility the fact that it does exist effects the market in a way that keeps your cost down and in effect it does it not by regulating the market but by competing in it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 4:30 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I completely understand. However the health insurance industry as run in America does not seem to be a free market.

Absolutely. However, from what I understand of libertarian thought, pretty much everything should be free market, and the competition inherent in a free market will keep prices low.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 4:35 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Social function does not have to mean governmental function. If people in a primitive tribe can recognize that they have an individual responsibility to take care of the feeble ..."

It does mean it has to be a societal function rather than an individual function, which you seem to confuse.

Society is made up of individuals. Individuals can, and do, voluntarily band together to perform societal functions without governmental coercion. Why do you think that individuals can't act for societal good without government intervention?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 4:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I see nothing in CTSLand that would make this so, as there seems to be no mechanism to make it so.

Do you need a legal "mechanism" to be motivated to protect your daughter?

Even if you didn't believe in love and general human kindness, you can count on some measure of self-interest in helping your neighbor. If you help him when his house burns down, he may be more inclined to help you when you break your leg. It is the most primitive form of catastrophic insurance. Then there is the self-interest in avoiding good old-fashioned guilt. Some people would voluntarily help others to avoid feeling guilty that they didn't.

But put all that aside and ask yourself, have you ever helped a stranger or given a gift even when there was no political "mechanism" to encourage such actions? Have you ever heard of people risking their lives to help strangers, even though there was no legal requirement for them to do so?

Maybe it comes down to one's view of human nature. But I have seen people help other people, and heard of people giving their lives for other people, whether the law says they should or not. So yeah, I think people will help each other when they have some time to bond as a community.

--------------------------
You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity.
--Robert Heinlein, Logic of Empire (1941)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 4:36 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Nah, it's not government paperwork, it really is due to 'for profit' medicine.

"Our biggest HMOs keep 20%, even 25%, of premiums for their overhead and profit; Canada's NHI has 1% overhead and even Medicare takes less than 4%. And HMOs inflict mountains of paperwork on physicians and hospitals. The average US hospital spends one quarter of its budget on billing and administration, nearly twice the average in Canada."

"Administrative costs account for 25 percent of health care spending, but little is known about the portion attributable to billing and insurance-related (BIR) functions. ... Overall, BIR represents 20–22 percent of privately insured spending in California acute care settings."

If you're gonna post "quotes" then cites would be nice.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 4:38 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
http://www.russiaprofile.org/page.php?pageid=CDI+Russia+Profile+List&a
rticleid=3408

"there have been a number of articles in the Russian press in the last few weeks dealing with the dire consequences that are predicted to result from the current low birth rate and high death rate in the Russian population. These rates have been attributed to a number of factors including unhealthy lifestyles, stress, and capitalism."

And this has what, exactly, to do with our discussion about Libertarianism/Anarchism?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 4:48 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

And this has what, exactly, to do with our discussion about Libertarianism/Anarchism?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Originally posted by SignyM:
Baloney. I can show you not only concurrent comparisons (USA/ Europe) but also striking "before and after" comparisons (Russia, Somalia).

Originally posted by CTS:
Okay. Show me, please.

Why don't you ask CTS or SignyM ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 4:57 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
If you're gonna post "quotes" then cites would be nice.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

You mean you can't use google and quotes to come up with sources ? Some of my sources are subscription (like here http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/162/9/973.pdf), so I provide quotes for people to be able to find their own sources for the same information.

The first quote can be found here
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Nh-q0_rjHaQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA40
5&dq=%22Our+biggest+HMOs+keep+
20%25,+even+25%25,+of+premiums+for+their+overhead+and+profit%22&ots=0nJCfDpvdx&sig=UyGnWlbxO1bc6xSHWTS-FiJ4E9s
(ETA: Link segmented to narrow page) or here
http://cthealth.server101.com/national_health_insurance.htm

The second can be found here
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/24/6/1629

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 5:02 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Society is made up of individuals. Individuals can, and do, voluntarily band together to perform societal functions without governmental coercion. Why do you think that individuals can't act for societal good without government intervention?'

That wasn't exactly the point you were arguing.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 5:58 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Libertarianism will not work in a Welfare State. They are antithetical. There are few mechanism in a Libertarian society to deal with social issues within the confines of the state. A society under a libertarian government needs to have some kind of social structure independent of the state to handle dependents. Of course for most of civilization, the state rarely took responsibility for caring for those who couldn’t care for themselves, so traditional societies generally have already developed the capacity to deal with these problems, usually within the context of religion or social norms. This actually is the reason why Christianity became so popular and so quickly displaced the pre-existing pagan or cult religions in the late classical Roman world. A principle tenant of Christian theology is the concept of charity. So as these large cities began to develop within the Roman Empire in the late classical and early post classical period, a distinctly libertarian method of dealing with poverty and dependency developed along with it. It wasn’t a perfect solution, by any stretch of the imagination, but it was as effective as the Welfare State. In fact, modern Libertarianism would probably take issue with the fact that the religion was essentially an arm of the state, so in practice, it actually worked out very much like a Welfare State.

The point is that this structure can exist, and it can exist independent of the state. Take my family for instance - we are a very libertarian minded people - and very traditional. My grandmother is legally blind and legally deaf, along with being about 800 years old, racked with arthritis and requiring daily medication to live. So she is a dependent. A perfect example of exactly what we’re talking about, yet she not only survives but lives fairly well, all things considered, on the assistance provided by her family. As a traditional family, we are much larger then the modern nuclear family - in fact there’s about 60 that are considered as integral members of the “family,” which is perhaps better thought of as a “clan.” We are always in touch, and aware of the local issues being dealt and always prepared to help each other out. We’re a large enough group that there is often a delegation of authority and a degree of specialization, so that at any one time several problems are being dealt with, usually be the people most qualified. As a member of the family that has had some limited medical training, I was chosen almost immediately to help out my grandmother, and that’s what I do. I sit with her every weekend. That decision was not made by me - that came down from the Matriarchs - the current “rulers“ of the “clan,” but as a dutiful member of the “clan” I makes sure that I follow the rules. Normally sitting with an elderly member, particularly a grandmother, would go to the woman-folk, and it is true that my two Aunts and my female Cousin help out during the week. I simply come sit in on the weekends to give the woman-folk a break.

That’s just an example, and I’m sure that many of you have similar kinds of families, although I’ve often found that this is dieing culture in the US, where families more and more are limited to just the nuclear-type, if that. But this is the kind of culture that would have to be in place for a libertarian government to work effectively.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 5:59 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Society is made up of individuals. Individuals can, and do, voluntarily band together to perform societal functions without governmental coercion. Why do you think that individuals can't act for societal good without government intervention?'

That wasn't exactly the point you were arguing.

Huh? I thought that was exactly the point I was arguing. I question your understanding of my point, since I know it and you don't seem to.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 6:05 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
You mean you can't use google and quotes to come up with sources ?

I can, but most people consider it a courtesy to provide links to the sites they quote. If they're subscription sites most folk can't enter, they at least provide cites of the source.

Also, if you're dropping in a cite in relation to previous questions, it would be nice if you indicated the question the cite refers to.

Good manners apply to these boards as well as to personal interactions.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 6:10 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Yes. If you’re going to quote sources, then cite the sources. If you’re not going to cite the sources, then don’t quote them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 18, 2008 4:00 AM

Quote:
it ends up with the person unlucky enough to be close by, not a paid professional. That kind of resentment can easily translate into bad care.

People with no family to look out for them get bad care, period, whether society participates or not. Do you think the minimum wage "paid professional" in a nursing home isn't resentful and doesn't take it out on the old man who has no relatives? There is no solution to the resentment. It's gonna happen, whether the care is voluntary or forcibly distributed.

Quote:
Somehow I cannot believe that if you are in a room where rape is being carried out and you do nothing, the law will not have something to say about it. Isn't that aiding the crime?

If you are only a watching bystander, you are not aiding. Hero can correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it, being a witness or a bystander is not a crime.

Quote:
Is it irrational of me to favor a system that doesn't make me choose between giving up my life to care for a stranger if I don't want to watch them die?

Actually, most people prefer to do it the way you do. Pay the money and let someone else take care of the problem. It is so much easier to give money than a part of your life. And just because there is no govenrment/legal mechanism for it doesn't mean there can't be a voluntary charity to do the same thing. That way, people who prefer to give money instead of time still can--they just give the money voluntarily.

As I said before, libertarianism is not for everyone. But can you grant that there are people who have different preferences than you, who prefer to not be forced to provide social services, and let them provide social services in their own way (voluntarily)?

Quote:
It wouldn't even have to be governmental, so much, but would a government-free system be able to provide a system that takes care of the helplessly sick stranger than shows up needing help?

They do it all the time, right now. They catch all the people who fall through those large holes in the social net I was talking about.

When I was a social worker, I worked a lot with homeless veterans. That's right--we send them overseas to get injured physically and emotionally--and the we refuse to take care of them when they get home such that they have to live on the street. (That is why I say this social net is an illusion.)

So what did we do when a homeless vet shows up on Thanksgiving day, saying he hadn't eaten in 3 days? Usually, he doesn't qualify for any existing govt services, and any that does takes some time to kick in. We get local restaurants to donate hot meals. We find groceries from local churches and other private charity food banks. We find homeless shelters (some of which do not get any govt money because they are religious). If possible, we tried to find some long term solutions for them--food stamps, get them in the VA system somehow, find family, sometimes even get them a job. We would make contacts with private employers and talk them into giving homeless vets a chance. Human kindness is actually quite a remarkable thing when you see it in action.

Most of what we got for these vets were from private sources, not public. Public resources have too many hoops to jump through that these people can't and/or won't. (For example, you have to have an address to get food stamps, and homeless people don't have addresses--so no food stamps for homeless folk. Or a homeless vet is an alcoholic, but the VA won't certify the alcoholism as service-related, so he doesn't get the health care he needs.)

As I said before, in my own experience, private charity has always been superior to public charity.

--------------------------
In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted.
-- Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 18, 2008 6:12 AM

AGENTROUKA

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
it ends up with the person unlucky enough to be close by, not a paid professional. That kind of resentment can easily translate into bad care.
Do you think the minimum wage "paid professional" in a nursing home isn't resentful and doesn't take it out on the old man who has no relatives? There is no solution to the resentment. It's gonna happen, whether the care is voluntary or forcibly distributed.

But wouldn't paying them more than minimum wage solve that problem? Because I'm all in favor of that. It's an aspect that can be fixed in this system. Ought to be, certainly. If you make it a job that doesn't break the person's back, it's a normal job, like any other. Not to mention, the nurse - minimum or not - is being paid to do a job. They can choose another job. Being a nurse, in that case, is entirely voluntary. If they abuse their patients, there are legal consequences.

But anyway. Overworked, underpaid nurses are going to be resentful, but that is more easily fixed than an unpaid, overworked "volunteer". No one is going to pay him. Hell, abuse even happens within the family, when they are overwhelmed by the work. And "volunteers" don't even have the option of quitting, nor can they fight for a more just pay because there is no one paying.

Quote:

Quote:
Somehow I cannot believe that if you are in a room where rape is being carried out and you do nothing, the law will not have something to say about it. Isn't that aiding the crime?
If you are only a watching bystander, you are not aiding. Hero can correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it, being a witness or a bystander is not a crime.

If this is true.. I'm seriously disturbed by it. It definitely IS a law here in Germany. You can go to jail for up to a year if you don't help, especially if it's to no danger to yourself.

Quote:

Actually, most people prefer to do it the way you do. Pay the money and let someone else take care of the problem. It is so much easier to give money than a part of your life. And just because there is no govenrment/legal mechanism for it doesn't mean there can't be a voluntary charity to do the same thing. That way, people who prefer to give money instead of time still can--they just give the money voluntarily.

As I said, I see this type of voluntary system causing its own problems down the line, but it's a compromise that makes a certain amount of sense to me.

Quote:

As I said before, libertarianism is not for everyone. But can you grant that there are people who have different preferences than you, who prefer to not be forced to provide social services, and let them provide social services in their own way (voluntarily)?

I can absolutely sympathize with the frustration of not being able to opt out if you feel you don't need it, but it would only be able to work completely outside the "forced" system. You can't have a system of garanteed care run evenly if people can opt out because the moment their voluntary system fails them in some way, they will be taking advantage of the public one.

Unless there's a working compromise there, too, that I can't see.

Quote:

Quote:
It wouldn't even have to be governmental, so much, but would a government-free system be able to provide a system that takes care of the helplessly sick stranger than shows up needing help?

They do it all the time, right now. They catch all the people who fall through those large holes in the social net I was talking about.

But those are not all the people. Those are the ones falling through the net. What about the ones cared for by the net that would also rely on the voluntary aid? Charity-run organizations would completely pay for all that is now provided publicly? How much in terms of charity would that require of people? Would a few who care be bearing the brunt of that cost or is it assumed that people will all automatically care more and give to charity in the needed amounts?

Quote:

When I was a social worker, I worked a lot with homeless veterans. That's right--we send them overseas to get injured physically and emotionally--and the we refuse to take care of them when they get home such that they have to live on the street. (That is why I say this social net is an illusion.)

But isn't that more a case of the system not being applied correctly, rather than it being inherently wrong?

Quote:

As I said before, in my own experience, private charity has always been superior to public charity.

And I still don't doubt that. It's, after all, truly voluntary charity you can opt out of giving. I just do not think that the ones not volunteering now will be happy to "volunteer" when they do not have a back-up. And an organized charity would need lots of money, too, that would need to be paid voluntarily. What if enough doesn't accumulate?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 18, 2008 7:13 AM

FREMDFIRMA

I don't have a lot of time, going in to back up dispatch today, so imma be brief.

Ponder this.

The stuff I do, outside of put food on the table work, mind you, I am talking down in the rabbit hole face to face with horrors I hesitate to describe... has no legal protection, is excessively traumatic and often downright dangerous, besides... and obviously I don't get paid for it.

I do it cause it *matters* to me, I understand in ways HKCav can probably articulate a million times better, just how important it is to not mangle, emotionally, socially or physically, our children, not just the disproportionate boomerang effect resultant, but because it costs us and them a critical piece of our humanity every time it is done.

I say again, people are not sociopathic by nature, especially within their own Monkeysphere (look it up), they are by default cooperative and helpful.

Don't believe me, try this experiment yourself.

At work today, place some small object nearby your workspace but obviously outside your immediate reach.

Pick a random passing co-worker and say "Oh, hey, would you hand me that, please ?"

AND THEY DO IT - our of sheer reflex without a thought, don't they ?

Tell me again, that our nature is so damn selfish and horrible, and while your at it, show me the title to that bridge in new york again ?

Cause I ain't buyin neither one.

-Frem

PS. To quote Zoe, "Oh yeah, this is gonna go great!" - puttin a guy on dispatch with a sense of direction so abysmal he keeps an expensive compass/direction finder in his cab in order to stay on course... still got a coupla days left before they lemme drive again.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 18, 2008 7:18 AM

Agent, you miss the point. They don't want to pay for this care at all through taxation, their possition is that rather than being "forced" to pay, if you want you can decide to pay via charity.

Now chances are that most people won't pay because I suspect there will be no social pressure that causes them to pay.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 18, 2008 7:23 AM