[MD] NHS? No thanks

[Arlo Bensinger]

Ant, Craig, Case, All,

I think its worth emphasizing that the "economic free market" is not 
the only door to Dynamic Quality. Throughout this discussion, that 
seems to be what's pushed and yet its simply not the case. Consider 
"public libraries versus bookstores". One is created through "forced 
taxation", the other through the "free market". Which engenders a 
greater amount of Dynamic Quality?

By restricting access to information to those with social wealth, we 
are actually closing more Dynamic Quality out of the equation. The 
greatest amount of information, in the hands of the greatest number, 
creates a context where larger amounts of intellectual activity, and 
Dynamic innovation, can occur. Consider, for example, that without 
libraries the only books that would be available are those that would 
be "profitable" to sell. Intellectual quality would be reduced to a 
popularity contest. Now there are Internet movements, such as Project 
Gutenberg, that are attempting to make more books available (free) to 
more people, but if we move the Internet into a completely economic 
market model, access to these books will still remain only in the 
hands of those with wealth. Are there really those who would suggest 
that DQ is maximized by consolidating information only into the hands 
of the wealthy?

Is there no difference between a society where only the rich people 
own Ferrraris and a society where only the rich people have books? 
Can we see no detriment to reducing information to a market commodity?

There are two primary assumptions raised by the capistrocracy. (1) 
People only labor for material profit. (2) Those who amass wealth are 
more valuable as Dynamic change agents (and, conversely, those 
without wealth are worthless, "social Darwinism" at its finest). Both 
of these are easily disputed.

Public lands, too, keeps the greatest freedom for the greatest number 
by giving all citizens a vested interest, and fair access, to the 
lands around us. Free roads and waterways ensures that the greatest 
number can travel unrestricted, and that goods and commerce can 
travel fairly to market. Public underfunding of mass-transit also 
ensures not only that the greatest number can travel, but eases 
congestion and pollution in urban areas. It allows greater numbers 
the mobility required to reach work and public lands.

Although the capistrocracy typically supports "forced taxation" for 
military and police, whose real-life work consists mostly of 
protecting the property of the capistrocracy, little attention is 
given to fire and rescue. Imagine a fire department that requested 
payment up front, or who would tell you that you could only affored a 
single truck response, despite your entire house being ablaze. Now, 
fire departments are in many areas funded by local donations and 
volunteer work (examples of human generosity and labor above and 
beyond the need for material compensation), but I've always wondered 
how people who do not donate could actually phone in an emergency. 
Wouldn't these people be seen as the parasites of society? Emergency 
response, EMT, Search and Rescue, and other services are also 
provided to all citizens fairly. Should a poor family's child who 
becomes trapped in a well stay trapped because they can't pay for the 
service? Should a woman suffering a heart attack be left to die 
because her credit card was declined?

Underlying all this is the advocacy of "social Darwinism", in this 
case setting up the capistrocracy as those with value, while assuming 
that those without wealth can and should simply die off and do 
society a favor. It is harsh sounding, but it is really what's being 
said. Why provide libraries for the poor, they are stupid and 
worthless. If they weren't, they'd have money and could buy books. 
And the only reason people write books is to earn money. Libraries 
destroy the incentive for people to write, and serve only to put 
information in the hands of the riff-raff who do nothing for society 
but bring it down. Public lands destroy the incentive for people to 
own land, and serve only for meeting places for riff-raff and other 
low-lifes. Anyone who is anybody can buy their own land. Those who 
can't are stupid and worthless and don't deserve to be on a lake.

As both Ant and Case suggest, and I say strongly, social patterns are 
not destructive towards intellectual quality, but they are a 
foundational support of it. The key is balance, and balance is not 
achieved by simply reducing everything (people, information, land) to 
a market commodity. All that does is set up a new princely caste, 
where power and means are consolidated in the hands of a few. One 
need only flip open a history book and look up the late 1800s to see 
how the reality of life for most Americans was. Unending hours, 
substinance pay, unresolving debt, limited life expectancy, and 
little chance to move up one's standing in life. While Pullman 
amassed great wealth and power, his employees lived in shacks, worked 
for credit only at Pullman's stores, and upon death their families 
were tossed out into the streets. It was a time when "people" were 
nothing more than a commodity to service the needs of the wealthy. 
Where I grew up, part of the Appalachian mine-belt, books and entire 
local histories have been written about the "daily life" of the 
miners. My grandfather told stories about being a boy and watching 
the men in black suites drop off a body on the porch of the shack 
where his wife and kids were, and simultaneously post an eviction 
notice on the door. Since the miners earned only enough to buy bread 
for the week, with little to no savings, the wife and kids were 
tossed aside like chattle. Further west, Upton Sinclair captured the 
reality of life for meat packers in The Jungle. Across the pond, 
Dickens captured this world with Oliver Twist. This is the world the 
social Darwinists want us to return to.

I say no thanks.