[ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae...
phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu
Thu Feb 14 04:45:19 UTC 2008
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 09:32:59PM -0600, Tom Tobin wrote:
> I've never liked this. The proper response from the government in
> terms of "libertarian non-aggression-speak", IMHO, would be to inform
> the non-tax-paying citizens that they are violating their citizenship,
> and will be considered trespassing if the violation continues. The
> individual should then have the option of either paying taxes or
> leaving the nation; if they refuse both, force would be reasonable
> only to the extent necessary to remove the former citizens from the
But what if there's nowhere else to go? If no other nation/landowner
want to take the delinquent citizen? Push him over the border, he gets
I foresee a re-invention of 'jail'.
> > ### I would disagree with the assessment of children as luxury items.
> > If you want to have your "basic needs" taken care of in about 30 - 40
> > years, children are a necessity.
> Wow. Relying on the tug of genetic heartstrings for potential medical
> care down the road doesn't strike you as both cynical *and* fallible?
They might not care for you, they might die before you do...
> indirectly? Yeah. Not having to even *think* about whether I can
> afford a doctor's visit if sick, or an ambulance run if injured, is
> one benefit I'll gladly pay taxes towards. You make it sound like
It's said that other systems are less able than the US at curing cancer.
I don't know if this is true, vs. biased reporting. But if it were
true, I wonder if they might be better at preventing (or more likely,
delaying) cancer. Which is better, a system which lets you pay $50,000
to keep you alive an extra year after diagnosis, or a system which takes
the $50,000 and spends $10,000 each to delay the onset of cancer in five
And there's been a bunch of research about the harm of long-term stress.
Perhaps the mere existence of a guaranteed health system, and not having
to worry about whether getting sick will mean bankruptcy, in itself
makes people healthier. Having low social status seems to be bad for
people, even controlling for money, which might make us wonder about the
health benefts of systems which reduce social differences.
> What if I *did* take those precautions, and it happened anyway? And
I view good government as part enforcer of the law, part environmental
manager (what temperature should the Earth be? How do we decide?), and
part insurer of last resort, stepping in in cases where insurance
couldn't ("no one thought that could happen") or didn't exist.
> (This quickly turns into a "ancap eventually devolves into a standard
> nation-state scenario" argument; I still haven't come across a solid
-xx- Damien X-)
More information about the extropy-chat