ContraryGuy on September 02, 2011, 09:01:50 am
It has been argued that AnCap can and would handle all situations that arise better than any governmental entity.
My question is, if you are on a planet with weather, such as Earth, and that weather develops into a damaging storm, how would AnCap handle the recovery and rebuilding?

For those you dont know, or havent heard, recently the Eastern coast of the United States was hit by an unusually large (for the east coast) earthquake which resulted in minor damage.  A few days later, a large hurricane swept up the east coast causing major flooding.

And so, roads are washed out, bridges destroyed, buildings damaged.  How would AnCap spring into action to rescue stranded people, bring food to those cut off, respond to all the emergency problems which are too immediate to put out for capitalistic bid?

If their is no central authority to provide immediate funds for immediate needs, and the cost of the disaster exceeds a localitys current cash on hand, what does it do?  Let its citizens perish?

Yes, it could borrow from other localitys; but what if the power is out and the telecom doesnt work without power?

I am hoping for thoughtful considered answers.  I appreciate the pioneer spirit of AnCap, but how would it work to rescue New Jersey?

macsnafu on September 02, 2011, 09:15:36 am
Ask the people of New Orleans.  Wal-Mart was better organized and provided more help than FEMA when New Orleans had their disaster.

I love mankind.  It's PEOPLE I can't stand!  - Linus Van Pelt.

SandySandfort on September 02, 2011, 03:01:53 pm
Ask the people of New Orleans.  Wal-Mart was better organized and provided more help than FEMA when New Orleans had their disaster.

Plus there is the Red Cross, an NGO. Actually, for disaster relief, the Salvation Army, another NGO, is usually already on the scene when the Red Cross finally rolls in. Of course, there are volunteer firemen, private search and rescue clubs, church groups, militias, etc. They exists now. My guess is with out the tax and regulatory burden we already carry for vastly less efficient, clumsy and dangerous government "solutions" such as FEMA and the National Guard, all of the non-governmental solutions would be way more robust, as they were in the past.

sam on September 03, 2011, 02:58:58 am
It has been argued that AnCap can and would handle all situations that arise better than any governmental entity.
My question is, if you are on a planet with weather, such as Earth, and that weather develops into a damaging storm, how would AnCap handle the recovery and rebuilding?

For those you dont know, or havent heard, recently the Eastern coast of the United States was hit by an unusually large (for the east coast) earthquake which resulted in minor damage.  A few days later, a large hurricane swept up the east coast causing major flooding.

And so, roads are washed out, bridges destroyed, buildings damaged.  How would AnCap spring into action to rescue stranded people, bring food to those cut off, respond to all the emergency problems which are too immediate to put out for capitalistic bid?

In Queensland, during the floods, numerous ferry services appeared, which were mostly or entirely private enterprise and were launched by private initiative.  They frequently charged fairly high (emergency) prices.

Most of the bridges and roads that were destroyed were government roads, which the government repaired.  Some of the roads, and one of the railways, were privately owned, which private enterprise repaired.

Quite a lot of repair work was done by neighborhood volunteer teams.  A major government road was cleared from impassable to barely usable by people who needed the road.  They just bulldozed it.

A lot of people just started using boats.  If you needed to get to a flooded friend, you trailered a boat to where the road went under water, then launched the boat.

dough560 on September 03, 2011, 09:56:21 pm
Word is, private efforts in Joplin, MO, responded faster with better results, than government bureaucrats.  Also remember for every $1.00 or government support, we paid another $1.40+ in service fees.

In every case.  Areas responding with private initiative, recovered faster than areas which waited for government assistance.

ContraryGuy on September 06, 2011, 08:39:35 am
Ask the people of New Orleans.  Wal-Mart was better organized and provided more help than FEMA when New Orleans had their disaster.

Plus there is the Red Cross, an NGO. Actually, for disaster relief, the Salvation Army, another NGO, is usually already on the scene when the Red Cross finally rolls in. Of course, there are volunteer firemen, private search and rescue clubs, church groups, militias, etc. They exists now. My guess is with out the tax and regulatory burden we already carry for vastly less efficient, clumsy and dangerous government "solutions" such as FEMA and the National Guard, all of the non-governmental solutions would be way more robust, as they were in the past.

Thats all well and true, but what happens when the needy are on the other side of a washed out bridge?  With no money to pay for the private helicopter service?
Capitalism says "No Money, No help."

You say that in the past all NGO solutions were *way* better.  Could you provide me with some examples? 
I dont remember the Salvation Army plucking people off of rooftops with helicopters after Katrina.

ContraryGuy on September 06, 2011, 08:46:15 am
It has been argued that AnCap can and would handle all situations that arise better than any governmental entity.
My question is, if you are on a planet with weather, such as Earth, and that weather develops into a damaging storm, how would AnCap handle the recovery and rebuilding?

For those you dont know, or havent heard, recently the Eastern coast of the United States was hit by an unusually large (for the east coast) earthquake which resulted in minor damage.  A few days later, a large hurricane swept up the east coast causing major flooding.

And so, roads are washed out, bridges destroyed, buildings damaged.  How would AnCap spring into action to rescue stranded people, bring food to those cut off, respond to all the emergency problems which are too immediate to put out for capitalistic bid?

In Queensland, during the floods, numerous ferry services appeared, which were mostly or entirely private enterprise and were launched by private initiative.  They frequently charged fairly high (emergency) prices.

Most of the bridges and roads that were destroyed were government roads, which the government repaired.  Some of the roads, and one of the railways, were privately owned, which private enterprise repaired.

Quite a lot of repair work was done by neighborhood volunteer teams.  A major government road was cleared from impassable to barely usable by people who needed the road.  They just bulldozed it.

A lot of people just started using boats.  If you needed to get to a flooded friend, you trailered a boat to where the road went under water, then launched the boat.


Thats all well and good for Queensland, where everything is flat, and the damage is from gently creeping water.
But,
A)what if you dont have a bulldozer handy?
B)what happens when the waterways are narrow, and surrounded by steep hills, and the current rips away your boat before it is even off the trailer?

ContraryGuy on September 06, 2011, 08:49:03 am
Word is, private efforts in Joplin, MO, responded faster with better results, than government bureaucrats.  Also remember for every $1.00 or government support, we paid another $1.40+ in service fees.

In every case.  Areas responding with private initiative, recovered faster than areas which waited for government assistance.

It is so good to know that private philanthropy rebuilt the high school, the hospital and all the houses and businesses.
As well as repaving the roads and the restarting electricity.

dough560 on September 06, 2011, 02:48:00 pm
Contrary, you're not thinking again.

In our society the government controls / owns the infrastructure you mentioned.  It is illegal for individuals to interfere with government monopolies.  Just remember, for each dollar "restored" the government kept $1.40+ for self support.

Individuals began rebuilding.  Funding generally came from insurance, personal savings and private loans....  In-spite of regulatory interference.  Where there were shortfalls, yes some people knelt down and begged the government for help.  Often, what they got was not what they needed or asked for.  In other cases, private initiatives were "too successful" and the governments shut them down.

The last areas being rebuilt (someday) are those whose population are totally dependent on the government.  In the mean time, individuals and Non Government Organizations are supporting those individuals.

Couple of years back, one of the tax reform groups released a study of all the taxes we pay.  Not just the obvious like Income and Social Security Taxes, but the hidden taxes built into everything.  They found the average citizen did not finish paying these taxes, until late August.  In other words, the governments steal everything we earn from January through August and we live on and prepare for the future on what we earn from September through December.  Under these conditions, it is necessary for both adults in a family to work, in order to carry the tax burden.  Our entire tax structure is designed to keep the poor, poor, make the rich, poor and prevent individuals from amassing wealth which would negate the need for government services....Individuals become and remain dependent on the government for at least some aspect of their existence.

Take a look at Forbes' Flat Tax Proposal.  The various governments condemned and derided it at its inception....  Why?  The proposal encourages individuals to amass wealth, negating the need for government services.  A rough example: a family of 4 would not have paid taxes until they exceeded $50,000 in income.  For earnings over $50,000, they paid a flat tax of 17%.  The tax rate was designed  to lower as the need for government services decreased.  This proposal had the added advantage of limiting TransProg abilities for power assumption and social engineering.

Without government restrictions and interference, we would not "Need" FEMA.

ContraryGuy on September 07, 2011, 10:56:44 am
Contrary, you're not thinking again.

In our society the government controls / owns the infrastructure you mentioned.  It is illegal for individuals to interfere with government monopolies.  Just remember, for each dollar "restored" the government kept $1.40+ for self support.

Maybe where you live.  Where I live, in the West, a person is allowed to introduce for his own use infrastructure that takes the load off of public infrastructure.  Private wells for water, septic systems for sewer, and solar panels for electricity generation.  And others, as is seen fit.

Quote
Individuals began rebuilding.  Funding generally came from insurance, personal savings and private loans....  In-spite of regulatory interference.  Where there were shortfalls, yes some people knelt down and begged the government for help.  Often, what they got was not what they needed or asked for.  In other cases, private initiatives were "too successful" and the governments shut them down.

Link, please.

Quote
The last areas being rebuilt (someday) are those whose population are totally dependent on the government.  In the mean time, individuals and Non Government Organizations are supporting those individuals.

Link, please.

Quote
Couple of years back, one of the tax reform groups

Name, please.  Grover Nordquist/Americans for Tax Reform is not a trusted source.

Quote
released a study of all the taxes we pay.  Not just the obvious like Income and Social Security Taxes, but the hidden taxes built into everything.  They found the average citizen did not finish paying these taxes, until late August.  In other words, the governments steal everything we earn from January through August and we live on and prepare for the future on what we earn from September through December.  Under these conditions, it is necessary for both adults in a family to work, in order to carry the tax burden.  Our entire tax structure is designed to keep the poor, poor, make the rich, poor and prevent individuals from amassing wealth which would negate the need for government services....Individuals become and remain dependent on the government for at least some aspect of their existence.

There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics.  A report put out by an obviously biased agency will say whatever the originating agency wishes it to say.

Quote
Take a look at Forbes' Flat Tax Proposal.  The various governments condemned and derided it at its inception....  Why?  The proposal encourages individuals to amass wealth, negating the need for government services.  A rough example: a family of 4 would not have paid taxes until they exceeded $50,000 in income.  For earnings over $50,000, they paid a flat tax of 17%.  The tax rate was designed  to lower as the need for government services decreased. 

I agreed with Forbes' flat tax proposal.  It went nowhere because the Righties saw that their favorite tax giveaways to campaign sponsors would evaporate like morning dew.

Quote
This proposal had the added advantage of limiting TransProg abilities for power assumption and social engineering.

Lefties arent the only ones involved in power grabs.  See also Wisconsin, Michigan (Lower Peninsula of) and Ohio.
In a Capitalist Society, he who has the gold makes the rules.  In AnCap society, the same thing happens, it just takes longer.  Eternal Vigilance is tiring, and most people just want to live their lives.

Quote
Without government restrictions and interference, we would not "Need" FEMA.

Until a natural or man-made disaster outstrips your resources.

mellyrn on September 07, 2011, 01:28:16 pm
Quote
Word is, private efforts in Joplin, MO, responded faster with better results, than government bureaucrats.
http://tinyurl.com/3uh3yba
"As with the devastating 1995 Kobe earthquake, government workers were slow in reaching afflicted areas and the 300,000 or so survivors, so yakuza groups stepped in and in many cases were first on the ground."

Heh.

Quote
As well as repaving the roads and the restarting electricity.

"Restarting electricity"?  When did the power companies become government agencies? 


Quote
Quote
Without government restrictions and interference, we would not "Need" FEMA.

Until a natural or man-made disaster outstrips your resources.

"Government" resources are (allegedly) "our" resources, and only part of our resources, at that.  The only question is, who/what is (or is not) mobilizing them.  Why would a community not routing procedure through "government" somehow have fewer resources than the same community playing Mother-may-I with full institutional rites?

CG is still on the (governmental) teat and cannot or will not grasp how adults can, and do, fend for themselves.

dough560 on September 07, 2011, 02:11:09 pm
Private parties do all the above here also.  That wasn't the discussion.  Government protection of monopolies was.

 Unless you can demonstrate bias or fraud, information sources have the same validity.  In  TransProg fashion you are attempting to limit discussion to what is acceptable as to you.  Competing ideas need not apply.

Grover Nordquist's American's for Tax Reform, even gets cited by CNN.  They don't like what he has to say, but occasionally they listen and even quote him.  I've yet to see anyone disprove Tax Reform assertions or cite them for fraud or junk science.

TransProgs embedded in both parties recognized the bankruptcy of their movement with adoption of the Forbes Flat Tax.  Response:  DOA.

Disasters always happen.  How they're delt with matters.  Government?  At best, does nothing.  At worst, prohibits and blocks individuals.  Individuals respond and rebuild.  When you get down to it, what the individual does is the only thing that matters.  Government doesn't create, but they're good at destroying.  Ethics, ideals, ideas, honor, morals....etc.

quadibloc on September 07, 2011, 03:21:29 pm
Quote
Until a natural or man-made disaster outstrips your resources.
"Government" resources are (allegedly) "our" resources, and only part of our resources, at that.  The only question is, who/what is (or is not) mobilizing them.  Why would a community not routing procedure through "government" somehow have fewer resources than the same community playing Mother-may-I with full institutional rites?
I think you missed the meaning of "your" as he was using it. You are correct that governments don't increase the resources of a community. His point was that governments can potentially mobilize resources from a larger community than would mobilize voluntarily otherwise - thus, he wasn't talking about the same community, but a different one.

mellyrn on September 07, 2011, 06:11:11 pm
Quote
governments can potentially mobilize resources from a larger community

I.e., compel that "larger community" (aka "other" communities) to regard as "us" a bunch of people it wouldn't otherwise include.  By that measure, we "should" have one government for the whole world, so that remote villagers in the hills of Sri Lanka can be compelled to help  stricken Martha's Vineyarders.  Because even the USA has limited resources.

And yet foreign aid gets offered, extra civitas -- just last winter, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela offered (and, iirc, sent) free fuel oil to US poor, to say nothing of all the aid that was rushed to Haiti after that quake, kind of thing.  Did Haiti need a functioning government in order to get that?

macsnafu on September 08, 2011, 10:07:36 am
Quote
Until a natural or man-made disaster outstrips your resources.
"Government" resources are (allegedly) "our" resources, and only part of our resources, at that.  The only question is, who/what is (or is not) mobilizing them.  Why would a community not routing procedure through "government" somehow have fewer resources than the same community playing Mother-may-I with full institutional rites?
I think you missed the meaning of "your" as he was using it. You are correct that governments don't increase the resources of a community. His point was that governments can potentially mobilize resources from a larger community than would mobilize voluntarily otherwise - thus, he wasn't talking about the same community, but a different one.

That's where the market can step in.  If government wasn't actively discouraging alleged "price-gouging", high prices indicate a greater need for supplies in a stricken area, and make it worthwhile for businesses to go to greater expense to get supplies to that area, thus diverting resources from other communities.   Unfortunately, too many people fail to understand what pricing information is saying, and condemn it.
I love mankind.  It's PEOPLE I can't stand!  - Linus Van Pelt.

 

anything