From: Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 21:52:39 +0800
To: cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com
Subject: Re: Question about anarchic systems and natural disasters
Message-ID: <199811111339.OAA22865@replay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Jim Choate writes:
> 
> What would be the responce of a anarchic system that was based on profit in
> regards something like Mitch's impact on Ctl. America and their plea for
> food and aid?

`Their plea for food and aid' is just that: a plea; it no more creates
an _obligation_ to help them than my plea for your money to help 
rebuild my burned-down house should. Still, in an anarcho-capitalistic
system, Mitch would be responded to by private individuals through
charitable aid organizations such as the Red Cross (much as it is now).
Your asking the question implies that you believe we have or should 
have an obligation to help Mitch's victims; one that justifies the use
of tax money - money that is, in effect, collected at gunpoint from 
all of us citizen units.

By the way, since you're so fond of quoting the US Constitution, please
show where the document authorizes the Men With Guns to take their
captives'^H^H^H^H^H^Hcitizens' money and give it away to help victims 
of natural disasters in foreign countries.

(Also consider that Mitch is merely one in a long line of natural
disasters that have been and continue to be inflicted on various
peoples of the world.  Some we hear about and some we don't, based on
the vagaries of the news media's inclinations and their judgement of 
how interested the American public will be. We don't end up bailing
them all out; only those which one politician or another has decided
will make them look `compassionate'. If an equivalent disaster occurred
in a less favored nation - say, an earthquake in Iran - you can bet that
the US's governmental response would be much less generous.)