🚀 go-pugleaf

In message <38511105@hpindda.cup.hp.com>, alanm@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Alan McGow
en) writes:
>Brian Yoder writes:
>>But how much is that impact "worth"?  Who decide how much an acres of forest
>>is worth?  Greenpeace?  Earth First? Users of lumber?  Backpackers?  Timber
>>companies?  My point here is that the kind of system you seem to be advocating
>>is NOT a way of informing the market...it is a way of putting the market
>>under the control of a political process.

>Issues about the long-range health of ecosystems and the biosphere *must*
>be handled by a political process, and cannot be left up to market processes.

Why?  Because you don't believe that property rights are unalienable?  Or is it 
that you simply want to control the property others have earned?  Or are you just
 
in general an advocate of totalitarian government?

Of course if you deny that these are true then you'll have to explain how an 
unalienable rights can be subordinated to government control, and according to 
what principle you claim that such subordination is just.  You have a lot of work
 
ahead of you.

>The whole reason that there *are* political processes is that not every issue
>is amenable to a market solution, 

That is true. Some issues are not amenable to market solutions...notably force
and fraud.  That's why we need criminal law, laws against fraud, courts to arbitr
ate contracts, etc.  My argument is not that the market is the solution for every

problem.  My argument is that the market IS the solution for resource allocation
problems and that the proper scope of government is limited to the defense of 
individual rights.

>or that the market solution is unacceptable.

Unacceptable to whom?  Just because you and your friends don't like the way 
others use property that THEY own is no justification for you to force them to
do as you would like them to.  That�s what tyrannical governments do.  Proper
governments treat the choices of individuals who disagree with the majority or 
the ruling class about how they should live their lives and use their property as

outside their power to regulate unless they violate the rights of others to do th
e
same.  Do you recognize any difference between liberty and tyranny?  You seem not

to recognize the difference, and only look at the difference between actions of 
which you approve and those of which you do not approve.  That's not the same thi
ng.

>Markets cannot decide such things as what longevity and probability of
>survival we as a society ought to establish for the species and ecosystems

Why not?  

It sounds like you know as much about economics as you do about politics.
>for which we are responsible -- 100 years at 75%, 1000 years at 95%, or
>whatever. That is necessarily a political question.

To the extent that whether we have a capitalist, socialist, or mixed economy is
a political question, you are right, but I don't think that's what you are gettin
g
at.  Please explain how this choice differs from the choice of how much of what 
kinds of food is produced is necessarily a political question, or why the number
and styles, and prices of shoes is necessarily a political question.  See my poin
t?

>The entire idea -- that the Republicans have been drumming hard (and
>cynically) for in their campaigns for the past 12 years -- that "political
>processes" are somehow illegitimate -- is anti-democratic in the extreme;

Actually, that sounds more like the Libertarians to me (I'm neither a Libertarian

nor a Republican).  When it comes to issues of resource allocation and planning
though, the government has no just role except as traffic cop. Depending on your
definition of "democracy" (which is likely as naive as your understanding of
politics and economics) it is either not something to be aspired to, or something

antithetical to the kind of pressure group bullying you advocate.  Markets for
resources do a pretty good job of evaluating the real values people place on 
the things and processes in question and motivate other choices accordingly.  Now
,
if you think that sum of economic values ought not to be followed, you can 
hardly claim to be in any worthwhile sense in favor of "democracy"...what you 
favor is a system where your clique rules over everyone else.

>really, even a bit anti-American. 

Really?  Since when is it anti-American to have unalienable property rights?
Since when is it �the American way" to have the government decide how you will
use your property and plan your future?

>It is dangerous because it encourages
>foolish people to crackpot simplistic notions like those Brian spouts.

What�s so crackpot or simplistic about free-market economics?  What's 
�crackpot� is the idea that government direction of economic systems is 
workable or moral.  Have you learned nothing from 20th century history? 

>"We the People" have every right to protect our environment well beyond
>what is possible by market mechanisms alone -- just as we don't expect to
>have to pay off thieves and thugs to protect ourselves against *them*.

You are (intentionally I suspect) ignoring the central issue.  Thieves and 
thugs are engaged in taking the property or liberty away from others.  The owners

if property and other resources you want to usurp have justly acquired that 
property.  YOU are the thug in this case, not the just owners of property because

YOU are trying to control that which you have no right to control, and the rest 
of us are justified in preventing you from accomplishing your criminal 
intentions by any means available, including force.

>Protection of people against violent crime is a legitimate function of
>government, as opposed to markets, 

True enough...the same goes for "peaceful crime" like fraud and the kind of 
tyranny you advocate.

>and so is protection of the environment

What makes that the case?  The constitution doesn't say so.  Natural rights
theory doesn't say so.  How do you justify this?  I should note that as you
seem to define it, "the environment" includes *everything*.  Even things not
directly "environmental" like human beings would fall under the kind of 
control you advocate because they have some impact on the holy environment.

>-- whose health we and our descendants depend on -- against degradation.

According to whom?  Some say that our "environment" is best protected by
omnipotent government agencies which operate without regard to individual
rights (such as yourself for example).  You really are advocating totalitarianism
,
do you realize that?

>It falls under the Constitutional heading of "providing common defense 

You know very well that "common defense" is intended in the military sense.
Be serious.

>and promoting general welfare" 

Jefferson would be turning over in his grave if he knew what ludicrous things 
people were implying was meant by "promoting general welfare".  We know that
the founding fathers wanted a tightly limited government from numerous
historical sources.  According to your reading of the general welfare provision
of the constitution, is there any power (of which you approve of course) which th
e
government may not exercise?  Of course not.  Thus, we are either completely
off-base with this idea of limited government and Jefferson really wanted an
omnipotent state, or your interpretation of the constitution is seriously flawed.

You decide.

>and is one of the principal reasons for government. 

Really?  And all this time I thought that the reason for having a government 
was to act as an agent for the protection of my rights...now you tell me that
it�s purpose is to in every case the government sees fit, to violate my rights.
What is your justification for believing this incredible inversion of the
historical interpretation (and logically morally justifiable) of western politica
l
thought?

>Nor is there anything very new about it. Even Victorian England
>saw the need for public sewers to fight cholera. 

Are you holding up Victorian England as the ideal society?  I believe that in
Victorian England, the government owned the water supply, so given that fact
it is reasonable for them to have taken the necessary steps to safeguard it.
That does not answer the question of whether they ought to have owned that
resource in the first place.

>The principle is not much
>different -- only here we need to protect the vital ecosystem functions of
>the entire planet against further destruction, 

Which functions are those?  How should it be decided whether this or that resourc
e 
should be "destroyed" or not?  Or are you opposed to all use of natural resources

by people?

>rather than to build some
>engineering system. In either case government action is equally legitimate.

Before you can make such a claim, you have to demonstrate that the actions of
the Victorian government were justifiable and why.  I am also curious just how
far you advocate going.  If we accept your idea that the government justly has th
e
right to control all resource use, does that mean that they ought to be able to 
set the prices of commodities (like coal, iron, wheat, beef, etc.)?  Does it
mean that the government ought to be able to determine the quantities of 
those commodities which will be produced?  Who will produce them?  What users
will have priority in acquiring them?  Where does it end?  What if people 
disagree with the choices of the wise central planners?  

>It will even be legitimate for government to act to prevent *violence* and
>*excessive exploitation* 

Excessive according to whom?  Earth First?  GreenPeace?  The Young Republicans?

>towards the living communities with which we share
>this land, for purely ethical reasons, 

What ethical system is that?  Why does it put the protection of rocks, plants, 
and animals equal to or ahead of the rights of people?  Why should I obey the 
dictates of your bizarre moral system? (I know, I know...you'll shoot me if I
don't.  Still think you're not advocating tyranny?)

>and not only for obvious human
>self-interest, once "We the People" have grown in moral capacity enough to
>see the importance of this. 

The idea that human self-interest is not the standard of moral choice is 
a very old and blood-stained idea.  I would have thought that by now most
of us would have abandoned it.  It looks like you are still mired in it.

>Once we see the fact that our interests arise
>from, and may never legitimately subvert, those of the whole living community
>of Earth, we will take this step, 

Well then I guess that we might as well all commit suicide since every home, 
farm, factory, and hut subverts "the whole living community of Earth" (the deity
of your religion apparently?).  If that's not the case, please explain just what 

you mean by this.

>just as today we (most of us) can see e.g.
>that it is never legitimate to let the "interests" of one race or sex subvert
>those of the whole social community, 

Woah there.  We have jumped all the way from trees and animals to racism and sexi
sm.
Let�s deal with one issue at a time.  If you think that the two are the same
then you are even more out in the ozone than I thought.  What makes racism
and sexism wrong?  (I�m not disagreeing that they are wrong, just asking what 
makes you reach that conclusion.)  What makes government action in that regard
allowable?  Does this have anything to do with individual rights?  Why do 
people have rights?  How can that apply to animals and plants?  This ought to
be good.

>and we recognize that government actions are sometimes needed to correct 
>such injustice.

Injustice?  Or just the fact that some people don't agree with you?  I don't like

racism/sexism either, but I don�t think that it is good or possible for the
government to force people to change their minds on these issues.  The way to
change minds is by persuasion, not by force.  Again as above, you see the governm
ent
as an agent for forcing others with whom you disagree to abide by your 
way of thinking.  Do you still claim you don't advocate tyranny?

--Brian