Subject:
|
Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 1 Jun 2001 13:17:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1390 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > > I would tend to say the latter. Rational people will tend to operate within
> > > the rules of the system to maximise their personal (or corporate) benefit.
> > > That does not make them bad, per se. If the system leads to bad outcomes,
> > > it's the rules of the game that are bad, not the players.
> >
> > I think you have just highlighted one of the biggest problems with modern
> > society. By that, I mean the increasingly common belief that just because an
> > action is within the written law it must be ~OK~.
>
> I agree with that. I am bound by my own inner morals, not the letter of the
> law, and feel some things that are legal are wrong, and some things that are
> illeage are not wrong.
>
> > I think this is quite
> > wrong. Loopholes do not exist to be exploited, they exist to be closed (i.e.
> > If the rules lead to bad outcomes – the players should change the rules –
> > not exploit them).
>
> But that begs the question of how much change is needed. Tinkering at the
> edges, closing loopholes, or restructuring the entire system? In the
> particular case of grazing, no amount of loophole closing is going to fix
> the fact that powerful interests will continue to lobby for rules changes
> that favor their exploiting publicly held grazing lands rather than paying
> true costs.
>
> Your reference a while back to David Friedman was valuable in this regard as
> he addresses the reason for lobbying problem... my desire (as one of 250M
> "owners" of the US public lands) for non grazing is weak and diffuse while
> the desire of ranchers to graze is sharp and powerful. Hence they can
> outlobby me and keep grazing rates far below market.
I understand your point. But does the average beef eating man not benift
from the cheap grazing in the longer term? Does the US not impose tax on the
owners of the cattle? Does your country not gain from sourcing beef from
inside the USA rather than from south america? Is it not better that US food
is produced in the US?
>
> The entire system needs restructuring, not the rules around who can apply
> for permits and how much they cost.
I can not agree that the entire means of production should be brought in to
public ownership. :)
Scott A
>
> ++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
| (...) Yes, we are WAY better off producing food in our own country rather than contributing to foolish exploitation and environmentally unsound agricultural practices in other nations. Though we may benefit econimically, we are helping to destroy (...) (24 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
| (...) We don't know. The true cost of subsidized beef is unknown. The true cost of eating more meat and less vegetables (health costs, economic benefits of people living longer) is unknown. The true cost of overgrazing is unknown. There are too many (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
| (...) I agree with that. I am bound by my own inner morals, not the letter of the law, and feel some things that are legal are wrong, and some things that are illeage are not wrong. (...) But that begs the question of how much change is needed. (...) (24 years ago, 1-Jun-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
|
|
|
|
