CDR: Re: Insurance (was: why should it be trusted?)

[Ray Dillinger]

On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Neil Johnson wrote:

>Two Things:
>
>1. It sounds like to me that there is no room for human compassion in
>crypto-anarchy.

There is room for human compassion in any system.  What is absent 
from crypto anarchy is a means to *compel* others to behave *as if* 
they were compassionate when in fact they are not.

>2. I think that it's funny that ultra-conservatives who are for letting
>"competition" improve health care are setting themselves up for more
>abortions.

??  What has that got to do with anything?  Are you saying that people 
who are the expectant parents of a child should be able to compel 
others to support the medical, educational, or other costs of having 
and rearing that child?  Or that people who are the expectant parents 
of a child which they themselves are unable to raise should be 
compelled to carry to term?

>How does crypto-anarchy/libertarian/anarchy propose to deal with the
>"tragedy of the commons" where by doing what is best for each persons own
>interests they end up screwing it up for everyone (Overgrazing land with to
>many cattle is the example I've been given).  

First of all, it's not a proposal so much as it is a forecast.  
This is not something that we're fighting for, so much as something 
that is happening all around us and which we're looking ahead to 
the natural conclusion of.  Morally, I don't defend it:  I just 
think it's going to happen and we should be ready.

Second, as far as I can see, there is no room for "commons" in the 
Keynesian sense in a fully crypto-enabled world.  Everything will 
be owned.  The best we can hope for is that ways to measure, charge, 
and pay for the benevolent effects of forests, grasslands, etc 
will be in place so that the free market can regulate these resources 
and keep them from overuse.

				Bear