Subject:
|
Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 14 May 2001 15:25:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1056 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > > Minerva is but one of many failed attempts. They go to prove Larry's claim
> > > > that there is an impermiable barrier to entry. Unfortunate.
> > >
> > > I know that this isn't what you or Larry meant,
> >
> > While I do agree with where you're going, once you get there (see below, I
> > don't just start at the beginning of a post and insert bon mots without
> > going back and seeing if they make sense or not in the context of the whole
> > post) why bring it up, though? Isn't it a bit of a straw dog argument? I'm
> > trying hard not to do these things, anyway...
>
> 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 could be at least partially a viable
> system.
Yes. I wholeheartedly agree. And they *are* damaging! Very!!!
> Even if the system in toto wouldn't work in the real world, we can
> all agree that elements of it could work nicely even as applied to the
> current system.
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 total pollutant allowed keeps going down every year but
the deals about who pollutes how much are allowed to go forward
unrestrictedly) would be better than a strict regulatory cap approach like
we have now.
It seems to work for the pollutants we tried. Why not try it for CO2???
> Well, in that regard (and how many others! 8^) you're something of an
> anomaly.
Why thank you!
> Many Libertarians I've heard on TV and in real life espouse a much
> more drastic and unrealistic "it must be this way, and right now" sort of
> view. These, I believe, are the macho-flash Libertarians you've mentioned
> previously, and I think we both agree that they're damaging to the larger
> discussion regardless of my agreement or disagreement with either side.
Yes.
> > Nevertheless I do think it would be interesting to conduct an experiment and
> > try to identify all the "why it failed" excuses in advance and eliminate all
> > of them in advance if we can. Interesting, probably not practical.
>
> Interesting indeed, and anyone honestly interested in the discussion
> should whole-heartedly support such an experiment.
If I put in 10 bucks, and you put in 10 bucks, we're what...
1/20,000,000,000th of the way to what it might cost to try it... :-)
I hold my city on the hill as an example of the direction to move in, but am
happy to see incremental improvement without ever getting there.
++Lar
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
