World's Largest Solar Plant - a Mishap

[Truthseeker]

I agree. I'm not particularly fond of heavy handed government regulation and red tape, and heaven spare us from the beady eyed government bean counter with no soul and a book of rules! But at the same time, I do not trust a greedy fellow in a $1000 suit to care one iota how he got the multi-million dollar estate he now lives on, or how many died in the process - unless someone (e.g. government) makes it in his best interests for him to care.

Very good, Jim. Simultaneously make two assumptions: 1) The people running the government will do a decent job of that and 2) the people running a libertarian community are evil or incompetent or shot-sighted. Rather fair in debate, Jim.

Iceland from ca. 870 AD to 1263 AD
Ireland from the seventh century to the seventeenth.
Besetting armed aggression that had lasted for centuries eventually forced the demises of those libertarian lives.

[Teallaura]

Very good, Jim. Simultaneously make two assumptions: 1) The people running the government will do a decent job of that and 2) the people running a libertarian community are evil or incompetent or shot-sighted. Rather fair in debate, Jim.

Iceland from ca. 870 AD to 1263 AD
Ireland from the seventh century to the seventeenth.
Besetting armed aggression that had lasted for centuries eventually forced the demises of those libertarian lives.

Boy, can you even READ?! That isn't what he said at all.

[Wally]

Boy, can you even READ?! That isn't what he said at all.

It's a libertarian thing.

So's the binary thinking.

[Truthseeker]

Boy, can you even READ?! That isn't what he said at all.

First Jim quoted Leonhard's post that was somewhat anti-libertarian. Second he said he agreed.

I can go on, Tealllaura, but please explain what Jim meant. Particularly the last sentence in his post.

[oxmixmudd]

Very good, Jim. Simultaneously make two assumptions: 1) The people running the government will do a decent job of that and 2) the people running a libertarian community are evil or incompetent or shot-sighted. Rather fair in debate, Jim.

Iceland from ca. 870 AD to 1263 AD
Ireland from the seventh century to the seventeenth.
Besetting armed aggression that had lasted for centuries eventually forced the demises of those libertarian lives.

Actually, neither assumption entered my mind, so I have no idea what you are talking about.

First, I was evenhandedly sarcastic of both sides. Both Government and large business leaders tend to be soulless, narcissistic folks (And wow - we're thinking about electing someone that doesn't even try to hide that he's that way!!!). Nevertheless, it is a simple fact that large business has routinely exploited workers and the environment unless they have been forced through the law and with massive fines to care about both. The overall driving force of a business is to make money, and often those running big business have little to no concern for anything else outside their own personal social sphere. And so as far as I know, the only way to force large businesses to care is to make them significantly less profitable if they don't care, and the only existing legitimate force on the Earth that can take a company's ill-gotten profits is the law coupled with enforcement, both of which are functions of the government. Now I suppose we could have little bands of 'Libertarian' vigilante union bosses that chop off the fingers of misbehaving CEO's, or maybe specially trained 'Libertarian' Greenpeace Ninjas, but I tend to think the established government, while not perfect, is a better option.


Jim

ETA: Yes - I am purposefully pulling TruthSeeker's "Libertarian" chain.

[Truthseeker]

Both Government and large business leaders tend to be soulless, narcissistic folks (And wow - we're thinking about electing someone that doesn't even try to hide that he's that way!!!).

Well, I agree, actually. That is what we have even though the USFG is the most powerful and controlling government in history. Clearly, you have little idea what is going on. Have you not heard the terms "crony capitalism" and "corporate capitalism"!? Big Government in cahoots with Big Business. A disgusting example is Big Pharma and the FDA. You probably would be surprised to see how many Big Pharma people "toil" in the FDA.

Far too many business operators are actually anti-capitalist. They get the law twisted to benefit them. You ought to research how "profitable" lobbying can be. You might not believe me about that. How big are the subsidies in the USA in toto relative to total lobbying expenses?

Nevertheless, it is a simple fact that large business has routinely exploited workers and the environment unless they have been forced through the law and with massive fines to care about both. The overall driving force of a business is to make money, and often those running big business have little to no concern for anything else outside their own personal social sphere. And so as far as I know, the only way to force large businesses to care is to make them significantly less profitable if they don't care, and the only existing legitimate force on the Earth that can take a company's ill-gotten profits is the law coupled with enforcement, both of which are functions of the government. Now I suppose we could have little bands of 'Libertarian' vigilante union bosses that chop off the fingers of misbehaving CEO's, or maybe specially trained 'Libertarian' Greenpeace Ninjas, but I tend to think the established government, while not perfect, is a better option.

I am surprised you have not thought of boycotts. "Vote with your money." Even today businesses have to take care of their reputations if they want to continue to make money, though I concede that many times businesses used chicanery to keep sales up.

Another thing. Simply saying that enforcement of the law and making laws are governmental functions does not prove that the government will do a good job. Nor that the laissez faire economy lacks means of delivering justice to people.

Again, you're ignorant.


If you still disagree, and are willing to explain why, please be more specific than in your last post.

[oxmixmudd]

Well, I agree, actually. That is what we have even though the USFG is the most powerful and controlling government in history. Clearly, you have little idea what is going on. Have you not heard the terms "crony capitalism" and "corporate capitalism"!? Big Government in cahoots with Big Business. A disgusting example is Big Pharma and the FDA. You probably would be surprised to see how many Big Pharma people "toil" in the FDA.

Far too many business operators are actually anti-capitalist. They get the law twisted to benefit them. You ought to research how "profitable" lobbying can be. You might not believe me about that. How big are the subsidies in the USA in toto relative to total lobbying expenses?


I am surprised you have not thought of boycotts. "Vote with your money." Even today businesses have to take care of their reputations if they want to continue to make money, though I concede that many times businesses used chicanery to keep sales up.

Another thing. Simply saying that enforcement of the law and making laws are governmental functions does not prove that the government will do a good job. Nor that the laissez faire economy lacks means of delivering justice to people.

Again, you're ignorant.


If you still disagree, and are willing to explain why, please be more specific than in your last post.

This isn't a topic into which I care to go into a long winded discussion. I gave a quick nod of agreement to a comment by Leonhard, but I have no interest in nor do I feel any obligation to defend that opinion against someone for whom the issue(s) is a major hot button.

My basic impression is that

(1) most governments are corrupt - power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely
(2) our government is better than most, but still has many problems
(3) Big business leaders most of the time are corrupt and willing to exploit those that work for them.
(4) Most people are only willing to do the right thing if it is convenient or clearly in their best interests.

Because of that I believe we must have outside parties with the power to require a business do the right thing - even though (1) above means the implementation will likely be far from perfect.

Finally - to help you understand why I'm not taking this further. I reject arguments of the form: "The implementation of X is really messed up, therefore we shouldn't do X". So, bottom line, because doing the right thing can often cut into business profits, businesses need oversight from a disinterested party. The temptation to cut corners is just too great. So if you want to argue that because the oversight is corrupt, we should toss the baby out with the bathwater and free businesses from oversight, I'm just not interested.

If you want to discuss what might be a better form of oversight, recognizing that businesses (or really any organization with power) needs oversight, then the conversation might continue.

It you want to just slam the US government - I'm also not interested.

Jim

[Truthseeker]

Because of that I believe we must have outside parties with the power to require a business do the right thing - even though (1) above means the implementation will likely be far from perfect.

Mere wishes (e.g., "outside parties") won't do enough. Show us we can rely on any particular government to do more good than bad.

Finally - to help you understand why I'm not taking this further. I reject arguments of the form: "The implementation of X is really messed up, therefore we shouldn't do X".

No, again, a question is, can we intelligently rely on the government to do more good than bad?

So, bottom line, because doing the right thing can often cut into business profits, businesses need oversight from a disinterested party. The temptation to cut corners is just too great. So if you want to argue that because the oversight is corrupt, we should toss the baby out with the bathwater and free businesses from oversight, I'm just not interested.

You still have the mentality of a statist--The State will do more good than bad. Prove that! Don't just assume.

If you want to discuss what might be a better form of oversight, recognizing that businesses (or really any organization with power) needs oversight, then the conversation might continue.

Why did you reject the argument of "vote with your money"?

[Kbertsche]

My basic impression is that

(1) most governments are corrupt - power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely

But this surely doesn't include the Donald!?

(2) our government is better than most, but still has many problems

Unless the Donald becomes president!?

(3) Big business leaders most of the time are corrupt and willing to exploit those that work for them.

But surely not the Donald!?

(4) Most people are only willing to do the right thing if it is convenient or clearly in their best interests.

Except the Donald, who obviously has the country's best interests at heart?!

(Sorry, Jim, I couldn't resist after just hearing that he clinched his party's nomination.)

[TheLurch]

You still have the mentality of a statist--The State will do more good than bad. Prove that! Don't just assume.

Well, it's your argument. Why don't you demonstrate to us that the Clean Air and Clean Water acts were negatives, or that the market would have accomplished the equivalent.

(good luck with the latter, given that the market clearly didn't)

[oxmixmudd]

Mere wishes (e.g., "outside parties") won't do enough. Show us we can rely on any particular government to do more good than bad.



No, again, a question is, can we intelligently rely on the government to do more good than bad?


You still have the mentality of a statist--The State will do more good than bad. Prove that! Don't just assume.

That is actually quite easy:



So the implication here is that the State is a God authorized entity whose purpose is to enforce order, the punish evil and reward the good. So scripturally, a government has a God ordained and necessary purpose.

And lest there be any doubt about it: Paul is here talking about Rome! Iron fisted and heartless Rome.

For an example of what happens without a government, go to the tribally controlled areas of afganistan. When was the last time you had to worry about a warlord and his gang of thugs invading your house, killing you, raping your wife, and taking the girls and boys as slaves?

So the issue is not whether or not the State does more good than bad - that is obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense. The issue is, more along the lines of are governments sometimes inefficient, or can governments be corrupted by sinning individuals - and the answer to to that is of course they can. So the conversation then must turn to what is the right balance of government, and how do we set up controls and safeguards to enable government to function on its best side, rather than its worst. And that was a lot of what went on the the mid to late 1700's in the United States and other European nations. How can we make a government that is not oppressive as it fulfills its duties. And we are STILL working that out.

Why did you reject the argument of "vote with your money"?

Because most people have their heads in what it takes to live today, and what they have to do to survive the crisis of the day. To motivate a boycott requires not just a breach of someone's rights, but a breach of nearly EVERYONE's rights. Solving the plight of coal miners in West Virginia is not likely to motivate the kind of national boycott required to force the hand of the national and well diversified corporation that owns the coal mine.

Boycotts can be temporarily useful - IF the offense is large enough and has the nation's attention (or at least a sizeable minority of the customers involved). But they are not ever going to be enough because they ride on emotion which is fleeting. To make a difference we need something more lasting, something indifferent to the vaying winds of emotion, something like the law.


Jim

[Truthseeker]

Well, it's your argument.

No, someone, not I obviously, would call for government action against this or that problem. Then I'd protest and challenge him to give us a detailed argument why we should think our government action will do more good than bad. Please don't reply to this answer until you see what comes after that. ...

Why don't you demonstrate to us that the Clean Air and Clean Water acts were negatives, or that the market would have accomplished the equivalent.

You have to be warned not to lose sight of the Big Picture, ever. You have to consider the economy of the WHOLE world, not just the localized and special impact of those acts. OK?

(good luck with the latter, given that the market clearly didn't)

The last time when the USA was close to pure laissez faire capitalism was decades before the War Between the States. If our argument goes on, eventually I'll tackle those acts anyway. Good examples, incidentally. I'll use Murray Rothbard's For a New Liberty, especially the "Pollution" section of Chapter 13.

[Leonhard]

I honestly still don't see how you've answered my charge Truthseeker. How would libertarians realistically deal with environmental problems? Lead lining, lead piping, smog, gas exhaust, co2 pollution, overfishing, et cetera... all these things have so far required government regulation.

In other words you haven't given us any detailed accounts for why a libertarian government would fare better.

[Truthseeker]

Heh, I thought someone would quote Romans 13.

So the implication here is that the State is a God authorized entity whose purpose is to enforce order, the punish evil and reward the good. So scripturally, a government has a God ordained and necessary purpose.

I am not sure what Paul thought of the Book of Judges. The possibility that it was libertarian is foggy, I admit.

I think Romans 13 was written the way it was because the Jews were being ruled by foreigners. And why let foreigners rule the Jews? Because the latter group sinned too much. Are you familiar with the OT and you noticed how often Israel's sins accumulated to the point that God decided to punish Israel by making foreigners attack and conquer it, not once but more than three times? Even Alexander the Great had a hand in those events.

Did you take into consideration God's warning through Samuel to the people that the king they were demanding for would make their lives much harder -- 1 Samuel 8? Did you infer from that God did approve of having authorities no more powerful than the judges?

So, Paull did not want the people to revolt. They are to accept being punished. And if they did rebel anyway, God will not help. Indeed this is how history went, Rome ruthlessly put down the rebellion ca. 70 AD and sacked Jerusalem and violated the Holy of Holies.

For an example of what happens without a government, go to the tribally controlled areas of afganistan. When was the last time you had to worry about a warlord and his gang of thugs invading your house, killing you, raping your wife, and taking the girls and boys as slaves?

Did you not notice that Afghanistan was NOT libertarian to the women and children?

So the issue is not whether or not the State does more good than bad - that is obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense. The issue is, more along the lines of are governments sometimes inefficient, or can governments be corrupted by sinning individuals - and the answer to to that is of course they can. So the conversation then must turn to what is the right balance of government, and how do we set up controls and safeguards to enable government to function on its best side, rather than its worst. And that was a lot of what went on the the mid to late 1700's in the United States and other European nations. How can we make a government that is not oppressive as it fulfills its duties. And we are STILL working that out.

You still do not understand. You think that anyone is at all able to accurately and completely see what good any proposed government act will do and what bad. Then he is able to show that the good outweighs the bad. No. The best we can do is to guess not once but many times. For one thing, what seems good a person thinks, another thinks bad. Which one is right? Or one thinks the good outweighs the bad but someone else thinks the reverse.

Sure, once in a while someone may guess right, but surely wrong guesses will be greater in number than right ones. Common sense.

Because most people have their heads in what it takes to live today, and what they have to do to survive the crisis of the day. To motivate a boycott requires not just a breach of someone's rights, but a breach of nearly EVERYONE's rights. Solving the plight of coal miners in West Virginia is not likely to motivate the kind of national boycott required to force the hand of the national and well diversified corporation that owns the coal mine.

Actually, I think a problem is that the people is divided. Another is that they don't care about what seems to be unimportant. Also people tend to let the government take care of a problem.

Boycotts can be temporarily useful - IF the offense is large enough and has the nation's attention (or at least a sizeable minority of the customers involved). But they are not ever going to be enough because they ride on emotion which is fleeting. To make a difference we need something more lasting, something indifferent to the vaying winds of emotion, something like the law.

But they change the laws every year, tens of thousand new laws or changes to existing laws, IIRC.

I don't think there are a great number of people struggling to survive in the USA. If you disagree, do you have statistics? I am not sure how to google oh . . . after posting this I'll try googling around.

[oxmixmudd]

Heh, I thought someone would quote Romans 13.[/QUITE] Of course, it's a somewhat obvious counter to your entire attitude towards the government - I was wondering why you had not recognized the conflict ...


I am not sure what Paul thought of the Book of Judges. The possibility that it was libertarian is foggy, I admit.

I think Romans 13 was written the way it was because the Jews were being ruled by foreigners. And why let foreigners rule the Jews? Because the latter group sinned too much. Are you familiar with the OT and you noticed how often Israel's sins accumulated to the point that God decided to punish Israel by making foreigners attack and conquer it, not once but more than three times? Even Alexander the Great had a hand in those events.

Did you take into consideration God's warning through Samuel to the people that the king they were demanding for would make their lives much harder -- 1 Samuel 8? Did you infer from that God did approve of having authorities no more powerful than the judges?

So, Paull did not want the people to revolt. They are to accept being punished. And if they did rebel anyway, God will not help. Indeed this is how history went, Rome ruthlessly put down the rebellion ca. 70 AD and sacked Jerusalem and violated the Holy of Holies.

That is adding a LOT to what Paul has said. Paul says NOTHING about God's punishment of the Jews in relation to this admonition, The context is how we should behave relative to the non-Christian world. Consider the paragraph preceding Romans 13:



There is not much of an out given the context.

Further, he is writing to the Church AT ROME - which included a good many gentiles, so seriously - you are trying to say that Paul was telling the Roman Gentile Christians that they ought to pay Roman taxes because the Jewish people were being punished for disobediance! I think you need to rethink your position here.

Did you not notice that Afghanistan was NOT libertarian to the women and children?

Totally irrelevant to the point. Without a government there is anarchy. Anarchy is the biggest and the strongest take from everybody else. So, even though I'm guessing you are unlikely to admit it, no government (no State) is trivially shown to be a far worse situation having a government (the State). And that applies even when the government is oppressive (my point in using Romans 13). However, we don't have a truly oppressive government by any realistic historical standard - or even by the standards of the world today. Would you rather be in Russia, or China, or North Korea?

You still do not understand. You think that anyone is at all able to accurately and completely see what good any proposed government act will do and what bad. Then he is able to show that the good outweighs the bad. No. The best we can do is to guess not once but many times. For one thing, what seems good a person thinks, another thinks bad. Which one is right? Or one thinks the good outweighs the bad but someone else thinks the reverse.

Yeah - and what makes you able to do it when no-one else can? Don't you realize that your zeal for Libertarianism is just as precariously based in terms of whether or not the good would outweigh the bad as virtually any other position on government?

Sure, once in a while someone may guess right, but surely wrong guesses will be greater in number than right ones. Common sense.

And why does that NOT apply to your position?

Actually, I think a problem is that the people is divided. Another is that they don't care about what seems to be unimportant. Also people tend to let the government take care of a problem.

Well - yeah. That and just being more concerned about their immediate problems with Johnny and the latest round of fights over video games. That and the leaky roof and what to cook for dinner. That is why pure democracies don't work so good. You need the people running the government to at least have some reason and capability of focusing on the problems at hand.

But they change the laws every year, tens of thousand new laws or changes to existing laws, IIRC.

Well of course, that is how we solve the problems when we accidentally create bad laws, and how we close back doors for getting around the laws we want to enforce. And this says nothing about the point made. Some laws might only last a few years, but most (e.g. murder/rape are illegal) tend to outlast the governments that enforce them. Emotions over things like how a corporation is treating people hundreds of miles away might last of few months, if people are really, really angry about something. The only way to really get people mad and keep them mad is for them to be the people affected every day by the injustice. And usually that is too small a group to make any difference using something like a boycott. Unless the boycott is government enforced ...

I don't think there are a great number of people struggling to survive in the USA. If you disagree, do you have statistics? I am not sure how to google oh . . . after posting this I'll try googling around.

That wasn't my point. I don't have to be wondering where my next meal is coming from to be distracted sufficiently by the day's problems to put the problems of West Virginia coal miners on the back burner.


Jim