Subject:
|
Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 11 May 2001 01:50:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
864 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > 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.
>
> 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 cleanup. Further, they can say all
> along "Well, we were just going by the available data--how were we to know?"
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 was damaging. I envision you objecting to this, but why wouldn't
someone else point out that dumping in the reservior was a bad idea? So we'll
assume that reasonable people acted reasonably along the way and noticed that
this might be a bad idea. The only way that Joe could keep it up was to ignore
or silence the opposition. Now there is evidence that they did so. So, not
only will Joe's company be included in the suit, but the complicit companies
will be as well. And if you recall our discussions of court in Libertopia, so
will the upper management teams of each of those companies. And maybe the body
of shareholders.
So really, a company like that represents an immense amount of wealth that
could be leveraged to clean such a disaster up. But I'm still willing to
acknowledge that it's wildly cheaper to damage than to clean up and so there
might be cases in which it simply can't be cleaned up. What then? First I ask
you to note what happens now...they put it on a list and get to it at some
unspecified point in the future hoping that some new technology will come along
and help out. But anyway, so it happens this one time and everyone in town
gets cancer and sues the crap out of Joe et al. Sues them to smithereens.
Joe's buddy Al who runs Al's Waste Disposal Cooperative in the next state over
notices how badly it went for Joe and decides that it's actually cheaper to
play fair ball. And if he doesn't, then the rest of management eject him
because they don't want to be ruined.
> > 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.
>
> Well, this is fine on paper, too, but what about in the meantime? It
> seems to set up pretty clearly the same old rich-get-richer/poor-get-poorer
> scenario that many people perceive as inevitable under the Libertarian
> framework.
It is inevitable anyway. I'm not willing to be an apologist. Even under the
best human efforts at communism there was an elite that lived high on the hog
at the expense of everyone else. They live like kings...like capitalists. I
don't believe that we have yet invented the paradigm that will prevent this.
It may be that something will supercede capitalism and lead our race to a glory
time of no want, but we're not there yet. And half measures only hide
problems.
The most common turn for a discussion on libertarianism (and the turn that I
believe this discussion has taken) is to criticise the perceived faults of the
libersolutions without fairly noting that those problems exist today at least
as much as they would in Libertopia, and that the market is more efficient than
social solutions.
By the way, it isn't covered in his book, but I believe that Alphie Kohn's
_Punished by Rewards_ covers much of why social programs suck, but on a smaller
scale. I suggest it as a read for anyone who has (or might have) kids, for
anyone who is a manager or policymaker, for anyone who is a teacher, and for
anyone in public office. It is an important read.
> That is, the wealthy can afford to pay for better roads, so
> shipping costs in their area go down, so prices go down to their area, so
> they save more money.
But the savings they recoup go to pay for better roads.
> Meanwhile, the poor can't afford to pay for better
> roads, so shipping costs in their area go up, so prices in their area go up,
> so they have to spend more money.
Which they didn't spend on roads.
> This is cumulative, of course, with the
> fact that the impoverished will be decreasingly able to afford to send their
> kids to better schools, so those kids are more or less guaranteed to make
> less money,
Everyone should be going to free schools anyway. See www.sudval.org for an
example of one. (It was the subject of a 60 Minutes piece two weeks ago if
anyone caught it.) I would say that the school one attends is less (not more)
responsible for what one makes than attitude that is learned from parents.
> It is impossible
> to compare the difficulty of fighting a pre-industrial age war (on distant
> foreign soil) with an organized, modern, technologically advanced, national
> military force attacking a sporadically organized, privatized, and volunteer
> army.
Why would the organization be sporadic? And you include privatized as an
adjective seemingly meant to suggest low quality, but it implies quite the
opposite to me. The folks that I know (mostly, knew in the past) who were
private militia members took their role very seriously. Most of them were US
Army trained and more martially responsible than most soldiers with whom I have
discussed military life.
> Attempts to deregulate the medical industries have demonstrated that
> lawsuits increase dramatically and costs are passed immediately to the
> consumer. To suggest that the solution is more, not less, litigation is
> contrary to available evidence.
I believe it depends on the nature of the court system. I think everyone
agrees that our court system needs some refinishing.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
