Subject:
|
Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 16 May 2001 18:34:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
651 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > The LMF(1) answer is that migratory birds ought to have owners, and those
> > > owners ought to go after the tower companies to demand satisfaction. But
> > > even I would tend to say that answer is, well, somewhat *less* than
> > > practical at this point.
> >
> > LMF(1) isn't a reasonable idea, for one thing.
>
> Indeed, but that is libertarianism for you! One of the bigger criticisms of
> the globalisation is the impact it has on the global environment. I have not
> seen an argument which even suggests to me that the libertarian model would
> be any better. Sure, people say that the morals of "the market" will demand
> high environmental standards. Right now market morals demand prostitution,
> child prostitution and paedophilia! Just as with these issues, I feel that
> legislation is the answer where the environment is concerned.
A problem that I have with allowing "market morals" to uphold standards is that
one only has to look at what unregulated industry has wrought at every
opportunity that its been given. IMO, free market (im)morals produce the kinds
of unregulated robber-baron piracy so intimately associated with the rise of
large-scale industry. 19th century industrialists basically operated in an
unregulated market environment: very little regulation, very little govt.
oversight, and much graft. When profit-driven industries (i.e., corporations)
are allowed to operate with basically self-regulating oversight, then you can
bet that the only interests served are those of the stockholders...not
consumers, not their workers, and not the environment. It seems to me that the
19th century was an exercise of "market morals" economics.
james
During the 19th and early 20th century, American industries were allowed to
develop in a very free and unregulated manner. Government regulations, safety
standards, and labor laws were loose, and often robber-baron capitalists and
government were bedfellows (hence the powerful growth of the
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
| You might have hit send before you finished. But I think I see where you were going so I will reply. (...) I think we have to define what a free market is and establish if, indeed your example is an example of a free market or not, before using it (...) (23 years ago, 16-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
| (...) I understand what you are saying. But the 19th century was not all that much better... it was just less organised. Remember, back then we had free market gems such as child labour and slavery. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 17-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
| (...) I do not view it as a "our needs" versus "theirs". Humanity & the environment are one. We need to stop viewing "the environment" as a luxury which is great when it is affordable. It should be viewed as a necessity. Further, I have to question (...) (23 years ago, 16-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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
|
|
|
|
