Subject:
|
Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 10 May 2001 13:27:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
656 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > If this is your assertion, then I say that its a fine idea, in theory, but
> > suspect in practice. What is the Libertarian take on public institutions
> > that benefit the public good?
>
> All public institutions claim to benefit the public. Many do more harm than
> good. The one that do good do so in a wildly inefficient way. An independent
> watchdog organization would spend your money better, and mostly help those who
> wanted the help.
Who would fund such an organization, and how can it make any credible
claims of independence? I don't deny the value, in theory, of the
organization, but I don't believe that we can trust it to be any more
impartial than existing watchdog organizations. For that matter, to whom
would such an organization be accountable? The watchmen?
> It requires a consipracy of epic proportions to prevent competitors from
> entering the marketplace with truely safe planes. There is no reason to think
> that air safety would decrease. I expect that with engineers freed to pursue
> their thing, that technology would generally improve in quality and cost
> efficiency.
I agree that no force is in place to keep safe planes out of the sky, but
I don't see how eliminating the FAA, for instance, would do anything to
improve air travel quality. The seems to assume that the FAA is responsible
for increasing the number of flights per airport or for suppressing the
advance of safe technologies. Do you believe this to be the case? If so,
on what basis?
> If [a road] wasn't safe, why would [the manufacturer] label it as so? Why
> not put a 50 MPH sign on that unsafe segment? It would be cheaper and more
> profitable for them if customers were not routinely dying while under
> their care.
Interesting. But how would such roads, and their upkeep, be funded?
Would we have to implement a series of toll booths? For that matter, would
a road manufacturer even have to post a speed limit? Why wouldn't all roads
carry an implicit "use at your own risk" contract?
> > Are there, in fact, certain areas of public interest that
> > can only be served by a powerful governmental regulatory oversight?
>
> I can't think of any. National defense is what people typically trot out, but
> I don't buy it. First, national defense could be much cheaper, and could be in
> the hands of voluntary militia.
And it would have the benefit of not having to be in place for very long,
since I'm confident we'd be quickly attacked and beaten, without a formal
and organized national defense framework.
> > or do we not instead *need* powerful
> > checks on the ability of corporations/individuals to overwhelmingly
> > act in their own economic self-interests when the public good (or even
> > public interest in their endeavors) are at stake?
>
> We do not. We want them to act in their own self interest. They simply can't
> be allowed to tread on the rights of others. Libertopian court will fine them
> if they do. So they won't.
More likely, since they'll be making far more money (in their own self
interst), they'll be able to afford much better lawyers and much more
extensitve litigation. They do so now, of course, but at least we have, via
the government, some (admittedly sluggish) recourse in many cases. I don't
see how that would be the case in the fed-free society that you propose.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
246 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
