Subject:
|
Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 10 May 2001 14:31:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
640 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > 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,
Whomever wished to..?
> and how can it make any credible claims of independence?
Independant of what?
> 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.
I'm pretty happy with the private consumer advocacy that I sponsor.
> For that matter, to whom
> would such an organization be accountable? The watchmen?
The shareholders?
> > 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?
Actually, I know very little about the FAA. I don't want to paint conspiracy
theories about them when I am ignorant. But in the great tradition of
government organizations, I bet that they do it inefficiently.
> > 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?
I don't care. That is a matter between the road owner and the patrons.
> Would we have to implement a series of toll booths?
That is one option. I would hope that technology could do better than that.
> For that matter, would a road manufacturer even have to post a speed limit?
Have to? Of course not. And that's fine too. I am perfectly capable of
determining safe speeds, or choosing roads where safe speeds are posted.
> Why wouldn't all roads carry an implicit "use at your own risk" contract?
Because some people would pay them to tkae the risk...it's like insurance.
> > > 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.
Who? Europe? Or did you mean our neighbors, Canada and Mexico? Maybe China.
But the stuff that I've read suggests that they're not really a threat.
> > > 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.
Court reform could limit the extent to which people can be burried in lawyers.
> 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.
I don't see it happening now. The people in the government with enough power
to actually do anything about it are the investors who stand to lose big if the
government intervenes.
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 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
|
|
|
|
