Subject:
|
Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 13 May 2001 11:19:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
886 times
|
| |
|
|
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 efficiency in general would increase, causing more spending ability to
be available.
Since I see people doing good with their extra money now, I would expect that
kind of good to increase. Helping the less fortunate is the primary vector for
this kind of spending.
Another point that I brought up in my last note is that the local roads aren't
going to substantially increase the cost of delivery. It is the highway system
that could do that. And the same highway system will service poor and wealthy
neighborhoods alike. Did you fail to address this because you think that it's
wrong or right or something else?
You tell me "you're basically asserting that the flaws of your proposed system
are okay because the same flaws in the current system are bad" in an attempt to
discredit that line of reasoning, right? You didn't follow through with a
critique of it. I would like to assert that I think that stance is completely
valid. If we have system X now, providing a set of services to a set of
people, and we see that system Y would provide those same services at the same
cost, but would also provide these other services to some or all of the people
at no additional cost, then we can say that Y is better. Getting to agree that
Libertopia is that kind of Y won't happen, I understand that, but I still think
that it is valid to promote change that doesn't solve all the world's problems.
I think that the US should pay off the national debt instead of having a tax
cut. But I don't think that such a course of action would help starving people
in Ethiopia (at least not much). Does that mean we shouldn't do it?
You note that my proposed road privatization would be bad because "certain
communities have money to spend on road repair without sacrificing necessities,
while other communities do not." I agree that this is true. Yesterday, today,
tomorrow, and when ever we build Libertopia. Probably. You think it would get
worse, and I think it would get better. So _maybe_ the condition of roads in
poor neighborhoods is not one of the things that would get better. Maybe only
the major highways would get better. So?
> You
> referred to money "they didn't spend on roads" in a tone that suggested the
> money would have been spent frivolously
That was not at all my intent. My intent was to point out that X dollars could
be spent on roads, or on increased cost of goods. And it might make sense to
not keep up all roads, and instead pay more for some goods. I recall being
certain places (e.g. Key West, a remote Redwood Forest on NoCal, and southern
Utah) where it was costly to deliver goods and that cost was reflected in the
prices. Maybe they could have built a pipeline for goods that would have
tremendously reduced the cost of delivery, but it would probably be cost
prohibitive. Why are roads different?
> [Corporate armies] is a horrifying scenario, and nothing will convince
> me that the first relative king of the hill won't put himself in place
> as dictator...
Why didn't that happen with the nations of the world? Oh wait...it did. And
you seem to be OK with what we have now, so what's the beef?
I tried for fewer sound-bytes but lost it at the end...sorry. :-)
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
|
|
|
|
