 | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Dave Schuler
|
| | | (...) Okay, let's say that Joe Smith TWD Inc is sued into bankrupcy and their assets sold. In all likelihood the cost to repair the damage to the environment will greatly exceed the company's worth, so even full liquidation of assets won't fund the (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | (...) Well, the biggest such organization today is.... The United States Federal Government.... Think about it, what makes the government any different than Joe Smith TWD? Actually, there's a really big difference, they've done such a good PR job (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) So you're agreeing that a corporation will not only be just as corrupt, but will likewise take steps to make sure that its corruption is beyond the reach of individual correction? The difference is that the government can be sued, and the (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | I think you have a few nots missing, and a few added where they do not belong (...) c /can/cannot/ in many cases. Nor can government employees. (Libertopian corporations would have no such immunity for their personnel) (...) That is, has the power (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) Where does all this c/can/cannot stuff come from? Is it English, or is it some esoteric computerese? FUT OT.Geek? Is that right? The gov't can't be sued for anything? I thought they simply weren't subject to civil suits, but were subject to (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) many cases, not all cases. So no, what you think I said isn't right. (...) Sometimes they are. Steve Jackson Games won a suit against the government I believe... The upside of small corporations is that it's possible to win against them. The (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: But I was serious about the c/can/cannot thing. What does that mean? Dave! (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) delete the slashes and insert the chars in <> c/<hange >can/< to >cannot It's an editor command, or supposed to look like one, anyway. Shows that you are Old Skool IBM with 3l33t VM 3d1t0r sk1llz, I guess. ++Lar (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | (...) That's 'cause the government didn't bother to read the rules to Illuminati: Weird Groups (Gamers) are immune to Government Groups (Secret Service). Fnord. (...) Yeah for Libertopia! These corporate sharks rape the system for all it's worth, (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | (...) away. I'm confused. I expected this to be anti-libertarian and so read sarcasm into it. But I don't think that it's warranted. Are you serious, Bruce? The opinion (sarcastic intent or not) is exactly how I feel. Put the ass of policy makers on (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | (...) I've said before I often agree with Libertarian theory - on paper. In practice, I think it has some serious problems - to be fair, what philosophy doesn't? I registered Libertarian to help get them on the California ballot many years ago, if (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) I agree that it's nit-picky when taken on its own, but the mindset is symptomatic of an apparent and as yet unresolved shortcoming of the Libertarian view--namely that those who are able to afford better conditions will become better able to (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | (...) Sorry, I wasn't trying to pass judgement on either side. I understand the point you have been trying to make, I'd just choose different ground to make it on than the roads. The roads in the poorer parts of SoCal tend to be broken up, the rich (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) I think you need to demonstrate this is actually the case, though. I don't think it is. Ever heard the saying "shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in 3 generations"? With a few exceptions, the idle rich children tend to dissipate their wealth and the (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) Well, I disagree on both counts, but I'm sure you're not surprised! 8^) I think that, as the proposed alternative to the existing system, Libertopia must provide the burden of proof that its notion of the fully free market won't result in the (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) I think you can start from an unfairer place and move towards a fairer place without having to start completely from scratch. I about 1% of the time think we should throw all property documentation away in NA and start over, negotiating afresh (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | (...) I think that I think Dave is almost right. It still won't be fair. (If I understand what is meant by fair.) Larry has more marketable skills than I do and I have more marketable skills than the lady who's changing the trash can behind me. Very (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) I am not aware of any deregulation of the medical industries, at least not in this country in the last, oh, 70 years or so. Can you elaborate? Or were you meaning deregulation like what California did in the case of the power industry. That (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) No, that's not it. I'll try to track it down for you. I got it from a recent debate about the proposed Patient's Bill of Rights. D (24 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | (...) First, if they actually were compliant with all the available data, then just like in the current system, we understand it to be a mistake and they do what they can to clean it up. Let's assume though, that there were data suggesting that it (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) These are the types of soundbyte answers I was talking about, since you're giving them as though they're self-evident and sufficient in themselves, when in fact they're neither. Your first byte here underscores that the wealthy will be (...) (24 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | (...) My attempt was merely to point out that one group is paying more for road improvement and the other group is paying more for delivered goods. It is not at all clear from this which group would be the poor and the rich. Or even, which way of (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) Ah, now I see. My reasoning proceeds from the idea that, as roads deteriorate, wealthy communities are able to afford the upkeep without curtailing their spending on food, rent, and clothing. Poorer communities, faced with deteriorating roads, (...) (24 years ago, 13-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | Dave, I don't have a particularly tight rebuttal to your issue with the roads. I do believe that the nature of our world/nation/whatever would change with the coming of Libertopia. Some of the changes are unpredictible. I think that economic (...) (24 years ago, 13-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes: I've snipped a good deal because I think we're getting down to our basic and irreconcilable differences, just like the last time you and I went around the table a few months back! 8^) (...) to (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Fair enough. Libertopia, though, is more of a thought experiment to examine ways to make changes than a thoroughly serious proposal for (relatively) instantaneous change. Certainly having it happen (all at once) to as large a nation as the US (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) You say this like the two are related? Sure you be more free to work longer hours to pay for basics. But think about the lives of those across the developing world on which the West’s "freedoms" are reliant. (...) If you read around a bit. (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | (...) Minerva is but one of many failed attempts. They go to prove Larry's claim that there is an impermiable barrier to entry. Unfortunate. Chris (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | (...) Unfortunate indeed. Did Minerva not involve the use of force to take the land of others?? Very libertarian. Scott A (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I guess maybe a few hundred people would probably claim that it did involve the use of force to conquor the area. But the other six billion, when presented with the facts would not. Mike Oliver went to an unused atoll and used dredging (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Well, then Scott's right; it *did* involve the use of force to conquer an area. Dave! (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I shall have to read the book 1st. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) I know that this isn't what you or Larry meant, but the statement above is indicative of another thing many people see as a problematic quirk of Libertarian philosophy. That is, if a system didn't work, it didn't work: a) because of an (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) I don't have the details on this. But I will say this (despite what Dave! says below...) if it involved the initiation of the use of force against people who were already in lawful possession of the territory, it doesn't sound very libertarian (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) I suppose I didn't phrase my intent very clearly. What I meant was that, although I know you and Chris aren't proposing things in this (non-falsifiable, et al) way, there are those who would do so, thereby damaging the credibility of what (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Yes. I wholeheartedly agree. And they *are* damaging! Very!!! (...) Right, for example while maybe we can't move to a "zero pollution unless you pay everyone" model, I think that moving to a market for just about every pollutant (where the (...) (24 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | (...) While I agree in general, Afghanistan did pretty well against Russia. -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (24 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
