Subject:
|
Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 10 May 2001 17:15:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
804 times
|
| |
|
|
Dave Schuler wrote:
>
> 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?
I don't think such a company would really last terribly long. If their
actions really had a wide impact, they would find quite an array of
folks against them. And not all of the money to hire the lawyers to sue
them out of existence will come from individuals. Those corporations who
realize they do a lot better when they have healty populations as
workers and customers will toss plenty of weight into the fray against
the poluter.
> > > 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?
Question (which Larry has also raised): Do you feel UL does a good job
of regulating the safety of consumer products? Do you trust the "UL"
label? Do you know who funds UL?
On the other side, while Consumer Reports is sometimes wrong, they do a
wonderful job of exposing dangerous products, and while they benefit
from government subsidy (via tax laws if nothing else), they are
primarily funded by their subscribers.
> > > > 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.
Well, if the road was too dangerous, the trucking company would either
pay for a better road, wouldn't deliver, or whatever. Eventually, the
costs would balance. If the road is unsafe because the locals wanted too
cheap a road, it would drive up other costs to the point where people
would either be comfortable with the risk vs reward, or the better more
expensive road would look more attractive. The market is capable of
realizing that and ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure 99% of
the time (and for those things which are more expensive to prevent than
deal with, well, why should we [as a community] waste resources
preventing them? [now if an individual or small group finds the cost of
prevention worth it, well, more power to them, you can spend your money
any way you chose, let me decide how to spend mine <and just for the
record, I'm willing to spend a certain amount of money, not much, but
some, or bailing out clueless people - why? I don't know, I guess I have
a soft spot, or perhaps I realize that it could still be to my benefit
to help them rather than let them get desperate and do something REALLY
stupid - and guess what, the population which doesn't realize that it is
to their benefit to try and make sure inner city kids {for an example}
have a chance at a good life, well, they can live in their community
which doesn't reach out to those kids, which has a much higher crime
rate, I'll take the community which recognizes such connections, and is
willing to put forth just a bit to give those kids a chance}>]).
> > > 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.
I haven't explored all the possibilities of privitization of roads, but
I bet there will be just as many speed traps on most of those roads as
there are today (well, there may not be as many speed traps, the "cops"
might actually try and pay more attention to the people really driving
dangerously as opposed to the guy doing 20 over in the middle of the
night with no one else on the road). As for how the roads are payed for?
Well, I expect a variety of ways:
- smart toll collecting (it's here), no need to stop
- toll booths (for low volume roads, or long distance hauls where the
"pain" of the toll booth doesn't matter much [for example, I doubt many
people would complain too much about waiting a minute or two at each end
of a transcontinental highway to use the toll booth])
- mutual agreement ("you can drive on my street if I can drive on yours"
- I suspect this would be how the bulk of local roads would be funded
[and I bet it would get upgraded roads built by the developers a heck of
a lot quiker than our current system doesn't get them built because the
developers sure aren't going to pay when the government eventually
will])
> > > > 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.
Oh, I don't know. I thought we settled that issue 226 (1) years ago...
And I don't think that's the only data point available to us either.
> > > 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.
The most important instrument of accountability is a court system. There
must be NO regulation of the court system (like legislative immunities
or award caps). The court system should also keep an ear to public
opinion (more so than it does today), but of course must continue to
always do a rights based analysis of each case.
Of course the court of public opinion is the most powerfull court. When
big bad corporation X screws over someone, the public will react. If the
corporation is bad enough, the public will start to shun the
corporation, and if it's the only corporation making some product,
someone will realize pretty quickly that there's a guaranteed market for
a competing product.
(1) Note that I grew up in Massachusetts so the dates are a little
different than others would say, who might say 225 years ago, of course
there are other possible answers, but you get the idea...
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
