Subject:
|
Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 11 May 2001 01:15:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
770 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> 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?
Sure. And if the public believed that, based on the evidence, and all the
massive evidence counter to that organization's claims, then Joe Smith would
get rich dumping into the reservoir. Just like today. Only, in Libertopia:
a)I think that people would take a more active role in maintaining the safety
of their drinking water, b)When Joe was found to be lying he would be held
responsible even if the company had been sold four times and he no longer had
anything to do with it, and c)the public wouldn't be robbed in order to fund
such miscarriages of morality.
> > > and how can it make any credible claims of independence?
> >
> > Independant of what?
>
> Independent of the interests it purports to oversee.
I'm thinking of organizations like Consumer Reports. I'm imagining
organizations that have the specific charter to protect the "members" from a
certain class of casualty.
> I'm sure the Tobacco
> Institute could produce endless studies verifying that cigarette smoking
> promotes longevity, bright smiles, and fresh breath.
And if they could convince a court, then they would be free of liability. As
it should be. But they can't...because everyone knows that they're lying.
> 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?
Fine, so an organization is sponsored by those who care in order to protect
them from this potential hazard.
> > > 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,
No. Misunderstanding or miswritten. I meant the shareholders of the watchdog
organization. That is, each organization would be (and is even now) sponsored
by a special interest...a segment of people who have decided that something is
worth doing. They control the organization. They decide what it does. If
they form it to investigate whether smoking is harmful, then they can have it
do just that. If they form it to show that smoking is, then they can do that.
If they form it to show that it is not harmful, then they can have it attempt
to do so. It's their org. They are only responsible to themselves, just like
we all are.
> > > > 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.
I don't care about some hypothetical road service provider for the sake of this
conversation. If it's my street, then I damn well want in on the policy making
and probably the best way is to be a share holder. My folks live in a
neighborhood where the roads are completely the responsibility of the
neighborhood association. There are about thirty families that handle those
expenses as they see fit. There are occasional problems with disgruntled
members who don't want to pay, but in general it goes smoothly. Why wouldn't
it scale? The government (in the normal sense of the word, since they are kind
of governing anyway) has no say in their roads.
> > 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.
It sounds like you're trying to discredit my stance by suggesting that that
reasoning is flawed. I don't think so. Compare the frequency with which you
have accidents to the frequency with which you do not. I think you will find
that most people actually _are_ capable of judging safe speeds. And the fact
that you get a ticket doesn't at all mean that you were going at an unsafe
speed...it means (hopefully) that you were exceeding the posted speed limit.
> 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.
Agreed that any group with the ability to get here could do that. But most
nations don't have the ability. China certainly does. They could doink with
us in a major way. But we'd swat them, privately funded or not. And if you
are worried about national defense, please don't let me stand in the way of
your fiscally supporting a defense force...I am likely to do the same. I would
expect it to be rolled into my general protection policy.
> 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.
I'm not sure how short my answers have to be to qualify as quick sound bites.
I'm guessing that this isn't really good enough, but it's all I have for now.
Chris
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
