Subject:
|
Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 24 Mar 2003 19:59:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1165 times
|
| |
|
|
"Dave Schuler!" wrote:
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
>
> > > > the same time period in which civil rights were non-existent,
> >
> > Which resolved regardless of the the attempts to stop it.
>
> Excuse me? In many cases it was forcibly resolved by the Federal Government.
Who is comprised of people just like you and me. There is nothing
magical about the Federal Government compared to any other group of
concerned people. I would also point out that the government didn't do
very much to stop the abuse until private citizens forced the issues
into the public awareness.
In fact, it appears that the death of a white minister from
Massachusetts was the final impetus for passage of the Voting Rights Act
(see this web site: http://www.uua.org/news/reeb/nyt030800.html ).
The government only does things because citizens demand they be done.
> > > > Presidents could
> > > > serve an unlimited number of terms,
> >
> > So? That is why we have an election.
>
> As was demonstrated in 2000, the will of a majority of the people is not
> necessarily reflected in the election process.
But that doesn't invalidate the idea that it is better to use the
election process than to create arbitrary rules.
> > > > the securities industry was wholly (and
> > > > tragically) unregulated,
> >
> > So? Who's fault is it if they lose everything gambling on the securities
> > industry.
>
> You misunderstand--brokers routinely cheated their customers, and now
> Federal regulations existed to stop it. Let's say that the next time you go
> to the doctor, he surgically inserts a baboon's kidney into your body. Will
> you simply admit that you gambled and lost?
But there was plenty of existing law that could have been used to
prosecute people for cheating. We shouldn't need laws to say "cheating
by using a color photocopier to produce money is illegal." Oops, now we
need a new one, "cheating by using an HP Paint Jet to print money is
illegal." Oops, now we need a new one, "cheating by using a Canon Model
123456 purchased from the Office Max store at 1234 West Poodle St in
Bulbous MA at 9:30 AM on July 14 2002 and using an ink cartridge purches
from.......". Now sometimes it may be necessary to provide
clarifications, but I prefer things like "reproductions of US currency
that are either at least 120% of the size or less than 75% of the size
are not considered forgeries" are a better way to clarify things because
they are less open to loopholes than trying to specify what an exact
copy is. And they still leave room for a court to decide that a piece of
paper the size of a dollar bill printed with pink ink with the pattern
of a dollar bill but a portrait of a pig replacing Washington's portrait
is not a forgery.
> > > > the environment was freely polluted by
> > > > unmonitored industry,
> >
> > So? Industry is self correcting. If no one buys a product because that company
> > pollutes they wouldn't do it would they.
>
> That's optimistic, but it's also foolish naivete. Experience shows that
> corporations will work to get away with exactly as much as actionable
> legislation will allow them to get away with. If you're positing some kind
> of self-policing free market model, you'll need to docuement the precise
> implementation of it, and you'll need to show that it would be superior to
> what's now in place. Otherwise, you're simply wishing.
The point of libertarians is that it would be much easier to get "right"
results by having a small very clear set of laws that actually held
people responsible for their actions. Then, instead of having to pass a
law that dumping hazardous waste in the stream so it drifts onto my
property is illegal, we would simply react to the fact that my property
was damaged, and go after the dumper. Do that enough, and people will
stop dumping.
> > > > the interstate freeway system didn't exist,
> >
> > Yeah Ford, Chevy, and Lincoln did some good lobbying for that. Nevermind they
> > also paid to rip out most of the rail lines.
>
> That's an ad hominem attack. Anyway, you're asserting the only
> beneficiaries of the interstate system are car companies. Is this your view?
It certainly is a more complex issue. Some of the things that
contributed, or might have contributed, though are:
- A dislike of the railroad companies for being successeful
- Profits to the car manufacturers
- I wonder if there was an anti-union aspect - i.e. that truck drivers
aren't unionized where railroad workers were
- profits for the oil companies
- military preparedness
The truth is that government does things to benefit the people who
contribute the most money, or have the most votes. The "people" only get
benefits when they have enough votes to force their issue.
> > > > rural electrical service didn't exist,
> >
> > So? Our reliance on a centralized power grid is a weakness not a strength.
>
> It's hardly centralized, unless by "centralized" you mean that there are
> hundreds of generation points and thousands of distribution centers. What's
> your alternative?
The grid is sufficiently centralized that when a problem happens,
surrounding areas need to cut power and such to prevent widerspread
problems. If a power station drops out unexpectedly, it causes major
problems. For a real quick look, take a look at
http://www.nature.com/nsu/021104/021104-15.html which was the first link
found by searching google for +"power grid" +blackouts.
> > > > and the FDIC hadn't yet come into being?
> >
> > And it has been screwing with the economy ever since.
>
> Because I'm a nice guy, I'll let you research and retract that statement
> before I destroy it for you.
Ok, so here's a reference that's actually the FSLIC, but that's very
closely related to the FDIC:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/SavingsandLoanCrisis.html
> > See this is my viewpoint. People are responsible for their own actions, and
> > should be held accountable for them.
>
> Well, that's nice as a pipe dream, but it has never had the chance to work
> in reality (not on Earth, anyway, and pre-industrial-revolution-era villages
> don't count as models). But what on Earth makes you think that corporations
> would be any more readily accountable than the Government that you so revile?
What makes you think the government is any more accountable than any
other individual or group? I keep asking this question: what makes
goverments so special compared to any other group of people? I guess one
could claim divine right, but that didn't seem to give us very good
governments in the past. Ultimately everything comes down to
individuals, and that's who we need to hold responsible. To do anything
less is to sweep problems under a rug. Of course groups of people need
to create institutions to act collectively, and there is a rightful
place for a government, but that government should really be nothing
more than the embodiment of a contract willingly entered by the people.
My issue with every current government in the world is that none of them
are sufficiently held accountable. They are all power grabs by a few
(really, even the early US government was a power grab, it was just a
more enlightened power grab than any previous power grab).
Frank
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
164 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
|
|
|
|
