From: Bill Stewart <bill.stewart@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 15:44:37 +0800
To: cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com
Subject: Re: Question about anarchic systems and natural disasters
In-Reply-To: <199811111339.OAA22865@replay.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19981115231531.00955100@idiom.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?

I see three aspects in which government affects disaster aid in this case.

0) Some of the aid is being given to Central American governments for
	distribution, rather than to private groups such as the Red Cross;
	presumably this is because they've got a known infrastructure,
	they're easy to find :-), they won't rip off too much of the money,
	and also some of the repair work is fixing roads that they own,
	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 people for money to do good things, 
	while governments like the US's can just take and spend the money, 
	and tell their subjects that they should feel good about it,
	and in cases like this, most taxpayers won't mind too much,
	though it'd be nice if the Feds would buy a few less nukes in return.
	Rampant theft is a bad thing for the economy in the long term,
	but short-term incremental changes can be relatively efficient.
	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) There is some synergy between the skills and equipment needed for
	disaster relief and those needed for military adventurism,
	like transportation equipment, strong people, and medical supplies,
	and if the military aren't busy killing people and breaking things,
	they've usually got the spare time to go transport food and
	medical supplies and build the occasional road or two.
	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.

	This synergy does occasionally pay off in other ways -
	policeman are awfully expensive resources to use for directing traffic,
	but if they're going to be walking a beat anyway to watch for
	Bad Guys and be available when citizens need them,
	street corners are a fine place to do it.  On the other hand,
	in a free society, the most common police functions are either
	not done (like drug wars) or done by the public (like stopping
	thieves on the street), and hired professionals can be used for
	higher-skilled activities, like detective work and bounty hunting.


Meanwhile, in an anarchy, people would have more money, because they 
wouldn't be wasting as much of society's resources on unnecessary 
government functions (though they'd still buy the ones they wanted),
and governments wouldn't be interfering with their businesses.

				Thanks! 
					Bill
Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com
PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF  3C85 B884 0ABE 4639