Subject:
|
Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 10 May 2001 15:11:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
753 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > Who would fund such a [watchdog] organization,
>
> Whoever wished to..?
So Joe Smith Toxic Waste Dumping, Inc. can fund a watchdog organization to
demonstrate that it's safe to dump industrial sludge into the local
reservoir. Is that what you're envisioning?
> > and how can it make any credible claims of independence?
>
> Independant of what?
Independent of the interests it purports to oversee. I'm sure the Tobacco
Institute could produce endless studies verifying that cigarette smoking
promotes longevity, bright smiles, and fresh breath. Without an independent
organization to oppose the industry-driven propaganda, and if creditable,
objective data are not available, how can the consumer be expected to make
an informed decision?
> > For that matter, to whom
> > would such an organization be accountable? The watchmen?
>
> The shareholders?
Who are by definition the owners of the company. You're allowing them to
police themselves, and just about every time this has been tried in the real
world, it's been thoroughly and horrifically abused.
> Actually, I know very little about the FAA. I don't want to paint conspiracy
> theories about them when I am ignorant.
Fair enough. For the record, I wasn't trying to accuse you of fostering a
conspiracy theory, either.
> > > 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.
I think you should care, since you'd be one of them. You'd be a patron at
least indirectly if the truck that delivered your groceries had to cross
such a road.
> > 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.
Just about everyone I know judges himself to be a credible judge of his
own driving skill, so much so that it's amazing that anyone ever gets a
ticket or has an accident.
> > > 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.
It seems to me that any well-funded, organized, national military force
can, if a clear objective is established and a goal is set, wreak terrible
destruction upon a nation defended only by a voluntary (and, by extension of
your apparent views, privately-funded) militia.
> > 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.
The situation would be much the same if stockholders got to police their
own companies; they'd have no incentive to do anything but protect their own
bottom line, and accountability would be sorely diminished. At any rate, if
it were not to be diminished, I have yet to read a credible explanation of
how accountability could be maintained in the absence of a public overseeing
agency.
I'm sincerely trying to understand your position; please don't limit your
responses to quick sound-bytes. I'd like to read an elaboration of your
thoughts.
Dave!
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
