X-Message-Number: 23174
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 14:49:07 -0500 (EST)
From: Charles Platt <>
Subject: $

David Stodolsky suggests that a prerequisite for widespread
adoption of cryonics could be a more equitable redistribution
of wealth, and:

"I don't expect there are many in this group that are
financial equipped to sign up for cryonics."

What a bizarre statement. As Rudi Hoffman has pointed out,
cryonics is not expensive for most people. I am paying $570
per year for life insurance. Membership in Alcor is a
fraction under $400 per year (or less for additional family
members and students). Total cost for me is therefore less
than $2 a day. This is unaffordable?  Members of CI pay much
less.

Cryonics is to some extent subsidized by benefactors and
bequests, but even if this subsidy were removed and everyone
had to pay the "real" cost (i.e. sufficient to enable a
cryonics organization to break even) I doubt it would exclude
the majority of CryoNet readers, since if you double the face
value of a life insurance policy, you do not necessarily
double the premiums (correct me if I am wrong, Rudy).

It is axiomatic that CryoNet readers have internet access. If
they can afford that, I think they can afford cryonics.

The truth is that David Stodolsky thinks that the compulsory
redistribution of wealth is a Good Thing. His post-facto
argument leads him to conclude that it would be a Good Thing
for cryonics, too, even though there is no evidence for this
whatsoever, and David does not attempt to provide any.

As for my suggestion that people seeking to debunk
libertarianism should read some of the archived materials at
the Cato Institute, of course this source is biased. But if
you're going to critique a political ideology, the obvious
first step is to read the strongest arguments in favor of it.
(I don't think David has actually done this, since he knows
in advance that it would be a waste of his time.)

As for credentials, I don't pretend to be as highly qualified
as David, but at least I can claim the capacity for
independent thought. I received my initial indoctrination
when I was studying economics at Cambridge University,
England. It was at that time still a bastion of Keynesianism,
and Britain of course had a socialist government.

Lastly it is a gross and offensive mischaracterization to
suggest I was "attempting to censor" another contributor to
this list. All I said was that if you're going to argue
against something, it's sensible to read about it first, so
that you can put together a meaningful argument.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=23174