Re: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/25/2005 10:09:14 PM Eastern Standard Time,

hl@... writes:

If you can disagree, please do explain how it can be so in an ever

burdened planet.

___

Anyone who's interested in the religious discussion, head over to

nt-politics, as I think it's more appropriate there, as it's a major tangent

from the

original discussion with decreasing relevance to the list, and has already

been brought up there.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>I think you raise some valid questions in your email that are similar to

>one's I've asked and can be subjects of legitimate debate.

>

>I would like to take note, here, that it seems to me that you very commonly

>refer to laws and judicial precedents in your arguments as if either were

>somehow a criterion of justice, rightnes, logic, or any such thing pertinent to

>the argument, when they aren't. In this example, what the state allows in

>some localities versus others has nothing to do with natural property law, and

>it is particularly irrelevant to a discussion that clearly pits what property

>*should* be like due to its nature against how property is currently enforced

>by the state. Also note that your deference to local and state laws appears

> to suggest that property laws are derivative of the state, whereas you are

>in the midst of a discussion begun by and largely dominated by people who

>don't believe this, some of whom do not even believe in the legitimacy of the

>state itself.

>

>It makes more sense to continue in the vein of the preceding discussion by

>approaching the issue by asking what property law should be like given the

>nature of that property or potential property.

>

>Chris

>

You are absolutely correct, Masterjohn. I am rambling ideals with

realities. But then again, ideals often are mired in the realities du

jour, correct? I think this is absolutely the case here. When ever

have property rights existed in civilized society without the restraints

of state or church? Furthermore, I wrote of international boundaries as

well. How do these situations pan out in the ideals/realities of

property rights when countries may or may not recognize the value

system(s) of the state at hand? If North Korea Bombs your property,

what then? How does an individual in such an instance act?

I think that in general the whole discussion is steeped in ideas that

are very dependent upon beliefs. Wanita has come up with good arguments

in this regard. Many people believe that the earth and all contained

within are on loan from God. Even our bodies are such gifts, Christians

at the least, believe will eventually be resurrected in the future. How

can property rights jibe with Christian ideals of stewardship of God's

earth? What property did Jesus of Nazareth own while walking the

earth? None, is the answer, afaik. And as far as the body goes, is it

not the temple of the Holy Spirit? If this is so, then how can a

believer claim even the body as their own? I don't think it is possible

to do so and be true to faith. I honestly do not see how Christians can

be libertarians in the ian sense of propertarians (or whatever

dear Berg said recently). Are we not stewards of God's earth?

If you can disagree, please do explain how it can be so in an ever

burdened planet.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

>> How are workers refusing to work ( " cheating " their employer) in order

>> to

>> drive up prices qualitatively different from electric companies

>> refusing to

>> provide electricity ( " cheating " their customers) to drive up the cost

>> of

>> electricity?

>

[implode 7]

> You can't be serious? You simply can't be serious. How is it

> 'qualitatively' different. There is nothing qualitatively different

> between a poor, overworked, employee without adequate healthcare,

> desperately striking (and losing $ and potentially a job) and a

> wealthy corporation cheating consumers in order to make their profits

> even more obscene? That signature quote about compassion is really

> nice - much like the ads that corporations put on TV about how much

> they care about people.

OK, let's get rid of the emotionally loaded adjectives and analyze the

two situations.

In one, a worker seeks a certain return for his product. He will

either find such a return, remain unemployed, or adjust his

expectations and accept a lower return. It's slightly more complex if

he is working for somebody already and wants a higher return from the

same employer. The workers can band together and demand more money. If

the amount is not too much more, the employer may grant it, since the

cessation of labor involves costs and inconvenience. Or he may hire

new workers at the prevailing wage (Note that this analysis does not

include any laws passed to alter the playing field.)

In the other, an electric company seeks a certain return for its

product. It will either find such a return, not sell its electricity,

or adjust its expectations and accept a lower return. It's slightly

more complex if people are using electricity already and the company

wants a higher return from the same customers. The company can demand

more money. If the amount of the rate hike is not too much more, the

customer will pay it, or if it's exorbitant, they will buy less

electricity and find alternatives to its use. (Note that this analysis

does not include any laws passed to alter the playing field.)

In both cases, there are no obligations involved. The workers are not

obliged to work for an employer, and the electric company is not

obliged (morally) to sell electricity to anyone.

Government uses the argument of necessity to alter the economic

equation in both cases.. Since it's necessary that people have jobs,

they forbid the firing of striking workers. Since people have become

dependent on electricity, they forbid plant closings and rate hikes.

The problem of course is that not only is neither thing necessary (just

pretty convenient), but the argument from necessity underlies virtually

all government intervention, including for instance pasteurization

laws. And just as those have more to do with the convenience of the

dairy industry than the " necessity of safe milk " so too do utility

regulation and labor laws have more to do with buying votes than

necessity.

www.users.en.com/jaquick

Evolution's a real bitch...and she's back in heat.

--Mike Schneider

[Guest guest]

At 4:36 PM +0000 3/2/05, wrote:

>Message: 24

> Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 16:07:12 +0000

> From: implode7@...

>Subject: Re: Re: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes

>

>[JAQ]

> > I guess I'll be joining them then. But I'll accept the possibility of

>> eternal perdition in exchange for the very real, proven hell that has

>> been created in the world by the notion that people's lives and work

>> may be disposed of by others (see Russia 1917-89, Germany 1933-45, etc.)

>[implode]

>Of course, the fact that there are some examples of governments

>committing atrocities does not mean that to make things better now

>means assigning more power to corporations.

Well, of course not. Assigning less power to government does not mean

assigning more to corporations

> That some people commit murders in cars is not in itself a reason

>to ban cars.

You'd apply the same logic to guns, I hope? <g>

The difficulty here is that it is the _raison d'etre_ of governments

to manipulate power, and that power is corrupting. ANY government

WILL commit atrocities; it's the nature of the beast. There are

gradations, of course; the continuum might be

Libertarian-Republican-Democrat-Socialist-Nazi-Gorbachev

Communist-Stalin Communist-Pol Pot Communist (exact order open to

debate).

> >

>> I admire the fact that you consider the political to be personal,

>> because of course it is. But of course you're lying when you say you'd

>> take 's money by force.

>

>And of course, since I didn't mean that I personally was going to

>take his money by force, you're lying when you attempt to impute

>this implication to my post.

" I will take some of your money BY FORCE if necessary "

If the " I " is not personal. what is? I recognize that the statement

was conditional ( " if necessary " ), but it still clearly indicates

moral approval of the process. If you're willing to hide in the

ballot box and steal, why aren't you willing to do it yourself? Maybe

for the same reason you'd rather help the poor from the ballot box

than out of your own production?

> > You don't have the courage to do it;

>

>That is pretty funny. I happen to be 7'7 " 350 lbs of raw muscle.

Yeah, and this being the Internet, I'm a buxom 23 year old nymphomaniac. So?

> >over the idea that

>> people might own themselves. Hide in your voting booth. There's safety

>> in being part of a mob. And as for coercion being necessary, didn't

>> your mama tell you that two wrongs don't make a right?

>>

>

>That's nice and simplistic. However, most people would agree that,

>for instance, while force in the abstract is wrong, it does need to

>be applied in some instances. For instance, to apprehend someone who

>is on a killing spree, so that innocent lives can be protected. But

>is this a counterexample of '2 wrongs don't make a right'...I

>suggest that you spout fewer cliches and actually apply some

>critical thought.

If the moral premise is that nobody has the right to INITIATE force,

then yes, it's perfectly legitimate to use force to stop initiated

force. Who has initiated force in such a way that it is moral to

take money from to feed the " helpless " (whoever they are,

besides the likes of Terri Schiavo)? If you're going to say that

" corporations initiated force " (itself a hard sell), you're going to

have to show how that justifies shaking down and (et

al).