Subject:
|
Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 10 May 2001 15:05:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1683 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> 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?
Such orginisations are normally funded by those they a supposed to police.
> 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 agree.
> 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.
You are missing the point. Improving air safet is not the point. Too many
libertarians are concerned only with saving $$ - to give *themselves* extra
choice.
> 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?
Indeed!
> > > 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.
Like the KKK? Enforcing *their* kind of order in *their* neighbourhood?
>
> 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!
I agree. The syetem you have today is flawed, but it is designed to help
everyone. Who would be able to take out an action in "Libertopian court"?
Scott A
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
