--
On Thu, 25 Oct 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Observer that in the real world, food and clothing is
> > provided by the market, and no one goes hungry or naked, but
On 26 Oct 2001, at 20:37, Jim Choate wrote:
> A truly 'white bread' commentary.
I observe the pigeons are just as tame in
--
On 25 Oct 2001, at 0:00, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
> > > A bare one objection to comprehensive market based
> > > security: a market needs private property, and other
> > > civil rights, in order to function efficiently, as
> > > predicted. Protection is what guarantees those
> > > rights.
On Thu, 25 Oct 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Observer that in the real world, food and clothing is
> provided by the market, and no one goes hungry or naked, but
A truly 'white bread' commentary.
--
The people
On Thu, 25 Oct 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>And if we place food on the market, we no longer have a guarantee that
>anyone will be able to eat :-)
Of course. The point is, the market can work perfectly well in the absence
of sufficient nutrition for all of the participants. This does not hold
--
On 25 Oct 2001, at 0:00, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
> A bare one objection to comprehensive market based
> security: a market needs private property, and other civil
> rights, in order to function efficiently, as predicted.
> Protection is what guarantees those rights. If you place
> protect
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, somebody wrote:
>
> >Federalizing or socializing the costs of security is like federalizing
> >or socializing flood insurance: it takes the efficiencies of the market
> >away and creates distortions.
It has two advantages over a strict free market model however. The fist
On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, Tim May wrote:
>Federalizing or socializing the costs of security is like federalizing
>or socializing flood insurance: it takes the efficiencies of the market
>away and creates distortions.
A bare one objection to comprehensive market based security: a market
needs private
On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, Tim May wrote:
> I didn't "dismiss" it. In fact, I wrote more about this issue, which I
> haven't seen brought up by anyone else here, than 95% of all posts to
> Cypherpunks have in their entire amount of original material!
My apologies. Dismiss was not the correct word.
I
On Wednesday, October 24, 2001, at 11:33 AM, Meyer Wolfsheim wrote:
> Largely, I am in agreement. However, in the paragraphs I've quoted
> below,
> Tim touches on a counter-argument and dismisses it. I'll like to expand
> upon that a bit.
I didn't "dismiss" it. In fact, I wrote more about this i
On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, Tim May wrote:
I don't have time to respond in depth to the points Tim makes here, so I
have snipped a lot of them. I intend to come back and comment in more
detail later.
Largely, I am in agreement. However, in the paragraphs I've quoted below,
Tim touches on a counter-argu
On Wednesday, October 24, 2001, at 10:52 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> You seem to have left out the fact that the single largest player in the
> "market" today is the government.
That's the sea the fish swim in...so pervasive that no one needs
reminding of it.
I am arguing for increased priv
You seem to have left out the fact that the single largest player in the
"market" today is the government. The security measures that are now in
place for air travel are IMHO an abuse by regulators that amounts to
using a private actor as a proxy for an illegal search : to whit names,
flight numbe
12 matches
Mail list logo
