Tim, before I start I'll remind you; I grew up on a farm for a good
chunk of my life.
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Tim May wrote:
> 1. Each farm and each farmer is primarily responsible for protecting
> his farm against contact exposure. He can, and should, disinfect the
> feet and clothes who come from outside his property. He can also
> incur the additional expense of vaccinating his animals. (Yes,
> vaccines exist.)
How the hell is a farmer going to catch and clean every rat, possem, cat,
dog, bird, rolling scrap of paper, etc.?
Very expensive. Dead cows and government subsidy v vaccinated cows but out
of business because our budget is shot.
No, clearly a moderating of the economic impact on the farmer by
distributing the cost of this tragedy (which effects everybody) is not
unwarranted.
As to the strategy of killing them. Personaly, I think they got a tad
gung-ho. However, my grandfater was alive when the last Hoof-n-Mouth
epidemic wiped out the cows in Texas, Oklahoma, etc. in 1929. It is
utterly devastating, and the effects can go on for a long time.
> As with government flood insurance, the subsidies of unprotected
> behavior do much harm. Farmers are not incentivized to protect their
> own flocks if they think government will do it for them...and if they
> think a "mass kill" of even their protected animals will be ordered
> by some simpleton.
They absolutely are 'incentivized' (what a fucking goofy word) to protect
their flock, it's their life. That flock goes bad they don't make any
money. They'll do just about whatever it takes, in general as there is
always that goofy son-of-a-bitch who is dumber than a fencepost to deal
with, to protect that profit line.
> 2. Foot and mouth is survivable. It's expensive to nurse animals
> through the process, hence the common practice of killing the herds.
Yes, it's survivable and you have a cow that is no longer salable. The
farmer is in this for the money. The reason you kill the herd is to reduce
cost AND infection potential.
> 3. If burning the animals is picked as the option, at least apply the
> same standards which would be applied to private actors. A business
> which proposed to dump 25-40% of the total annual dioxin burden into
> the air would be told to find other options. (Especially when
> concentrated in a specific region.)
Granted that's not the brightest solution, as I said earlier. However,
that still does't excuse the stretch of logic from 'the implimination was
carried out efficiently' to 'all operations are inefficient'.
> However, governments usually exempt themselves from their own laws,
> for natural and obvious reasons. (Because they _can_, for starters.
> And because bureaucrats planning tire pyres don't have anyone they
> have to go to for permission, unlike a business planning something
> similar. And because they think they are above the law.)
>
> For good ways to think about the tort issues, David Friedman's new
> book, "Law's Order," is very good. Also, Richard Posner.
And what would your solution be? We can't kill the cows, spread the hurt
around, and get on with our lives by your view. We can't let the farmers
shoulder the burden of the cost of vacination alone, because it will put
them out of business - same end result, different steps, yet we can't
spread that cost around either. So what is the solution?
What is the specific Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist-Crypto strategy? How
would you handle it? Imagine you are the one in charge, you're the one to
'make it happen'...how would you do 'the right thing' for all concerned?
____________________________________________________________________
The solution lies in the heart of humankind.
Chris Lawson
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate
Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087
-====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
--------------------------------------------------------------------
