From: Bill Stewart <bill.stewart@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 14:00:46 +0800
To: Jim Choate <cypherpunks@EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer)
Subject: Re: Question about anarchic systems and natural disasters (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <199811161315.HAA10512@einstein.ssz.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19981116170417.008a3750@idiom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 07:15 AM 11/16/98 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
>> I see three aspects in which government affects disaster aid in this case.
>[remainder deleted]
>The question was how would an anarchic system work in this respect, not how
>do governments, relief organizations, and the general public act now.

Wasn't explicit enough for you, even with comparisons in the sections?
Let's try again, then, deleting most of the how-it-works-today parts,
and flagging the new material with ++

0) <governments as distribution channels>
	If Central America were anarchist, the road money would go to
	road-maintenance companies or collectives, and the rest would
	probably be handled between by the Catholic Church and other
	international charities, plus by the local charities which would
	be bigger because they'd be doing jobs governments do know.

1) <Real charities have to ask for money, governments can steal it fast>
	++ They'd still have to ask, and people would be more willing to give,
	++ because they know it's their job, and because they've got
	++ more money that they're not wasting on governments.

	Also, in an anarchist society, charities would generally keep
	a reasonable amount of money on hand for emergencies like this,
	larger than they do today, but smaller than governments' slush funds.

2) <synergy between the disaster relief and military adventurism>
	Even purely defensive military forces aren't directly
	contributing to society sitting around idle - even a
	peaceful anarchist society needs some protection against
	invaders, though there are more efficient and safer approaches than
	a standing army - and even though they'd be smaller,
	they can still be helpful.

	++ But yes, this part may be easier in a collectivist militarist society
	++ than in a peaceful anarchist society.  On the other hand,
	++ even without socialized roadbuilding, there'll still be 
	++ road-builders who can be hired, and there may be more pilots
	++ if transportation isn't a licensed activity, though
	++ insurance companies (or self-insurance) reduce this effect a bit.
	++ Also, without government-subsidized uneconomical roadbuilding in the 
	++ National Forests, there'd be more business for non-road-based
	++ transportation of logging in remote forests, so technology
	++ for doing that would be more developed.  My guess is we'd have a
	++ lot more blimps than today, partly as communications platforms,
	++ though it really is faster to haul Hueys somewhere in a hurry.

3) ++ Better economies in Central America
	++ I missed this entirely in my first analysis - part of the problem
	++ has been the weakness of the Central American economies which
	++ makes it harder for them to do their own relief efforts.
	++ So much of that area is in bad shape because of US-supported
	++ military regimes, either dictatorships and juntas, or places like
	++ Nicaragua where the only way to get rid of the Somoza dictators
	++ was for a bunch of Commies to overthrow them, which not only had
	++ the devastation of a civil war and the inherent stupidity and
	++ mismanagement of a Commie government, but also had a US embargo
	++ against them interfering with the foreign trade that could have
	++ helped pull them out of the hole they were in.  
	++ 
	++ How much of this would go away if either we were anarchist?
	++ Depends on when you suppose it would have changed here,
	++ but even 25 years of US anarchy starting tomorrow would be a 
	++ major help to Central America, by eliminating support for militarism
	++ and by ending the Drug War (though that has more effect on 
	++ Mexico and South America than on Honduras and Guatemala.)
	++ Without the Drug War in the US, prices of cocaine would be
	++ low enough that they wouldn't displace food crops as much,
	++ and marijuana and opium would primarily be grown in the US,
	++ and drugs would probably be legal or near-legal in Latin America,
	++ so there'd be a lot less corruption and violence associated with the
	++ narcotics business, which would leave both hurricane-hit and
	++ non-hurricane-hit parts of Latin America better able to fund recovery.
				Thanks! 
					Bill
Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com
PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF  3C85 B884 0ABE 4639