Topic: Maximum role of Government? - page 13. (Read 28705 times)

Quote from: AyeYo on July 13, 2011, 03:57:02 PM

Quote from: myrkul on July 13, 2011, 04:36:12 PM

That's irrelevant. Groups of citizens hire lobbiests all the time. If citizens can overcome a private security company, why can they not overcome a coal plant company?

So, you advocate, in addition to taxes, and probably paying that same company for power, that they hire private lobbyists?

You dodged my question. I'll repost it.

If citizens can overcome a private security company, why can they not overcome a coal plant company?

Necessary expenditures like, Oh, say, housing, and food come to mind. You are suggesting they pay a company for power, pay the government to keep that company in line, and pay a lobbyist to keep the government in line?

I am suggesting that they pay a company to provide power, and then select a company (from several) to keep that company in line. Because not everyone is going to pick the same agency, there will be more agencies watching the power company than under any government monopoly, and it will be done for cheaper because there will be no government to keep in line.

You dodged it again. Here's the question, try to answer it and stop setting up strawmen.

If citizens can overcome a private security company, why can they not overcome a coal plant company?

No, I didn't. Read it again. I'll bold the relevant section.

Done? Good. Why? Because it's too damn expensive.

I don't follow your illogic. What do housing and food have to do with anything? Even if they're relevant, why do housing and food spending prevent them from overcoming the power of a coal plant, but do not prevent them from overcoming the power of a security firm? Do citizens not have to eat and have rooves over their heads if fighting against a security firm?

Here is my question for the third time. I think you quite misunderstand it. Please read it very carefully. We're comparing two separate (yet functionally identical) situtations, one of which you've said will have an opposite outcome of the other. I'd like to know your reasoning for that.

If citizens can overcome a private security company, why can they not overcome a coal plant company?

JA37

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Quote from: JA37 on July 13, 2011, 04:32:55 PM

Quote from: myrkul on July 13, 2011, 04:23:07 PM

Quote from: JA37 on July 13, 2011, 04:32:55 PM

Because it's too damn expensive.

And you won't have those costs otherwise? It's just in the current society you do?

Well, I am advocating removing the single most expensive item from the list, remember.

Too bad you're not advocating cutting costs instead. Replacing one item with lots of others doesn't really help.

How, exactly, am I not advocating cutting costs?

Today you get a lot of things for "free" because other people pay for it for you. People with more money than you.
That goes against your ideology so prices will probably go up for most people if you got to decide how the world should work.
Either that or they get to choose to cut unnecessary spending such as education to pay for food and housing, not to mention security.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: myrkul on July 13, 2011, 04:23:07 PM

Quote from: myrkul on July 13, 2011, 04:23:07 PM

Because it's too damn expensive.

And you won't have those costs otherwise? It's just in the current society you do?

Well, I am advocating removing the single most expensive item from the list, remember.

Too bad you're not advocating cutting costs instead. Replacing one item with lots of others doesn't really help.

How, exactly, am I not advocating cutting costs?

JA37

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Because it's too damn expensive.

And you won't have those costs otherwise? It's just in the current society you do?

Well, I am advocating removing the single most expensive item from the list, remember.

Too bad you're not advocating cutting costs instead. Replacing one item with lots of others doesn't really help.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Because it's too damn expensive.

And you won't have those costs otherwise? It's just in the current society you do?

Well, I am advocating removing the single most expensive item from the list, remember.

JA37

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Quote from: AyeYo on July 13, 2011, 03:57:02 PM

Because it's too damn expensive.

And you won't have those costs otherwise? It's just in the current society you do?

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: ascent on July 13, 2011, 03:52:42 PM

That's irrelevant. Groups of citizens hire lobbiests all the time. If citizens can overcome a private security company, why can they not overcome a coal plant company?

So, you advocate, in addition to taxes, and probably paying that same company for power, that they hire private lobbyists?

You dodged my question. I'll repost it.

If citizens can overcome a private security company, why can they not overcome a coal plant company?

Necessary expenditures like, Oh, say, housing, and food come to mind. You are suggesting they pay a company for power, pay the government to keep that company in line, and pay a lobbyist to keep the government in line?

I am suggesting that they pay a company to provide power, and then select a company (from several) to keep that company in line. Because not everyone is going to pick the same agency, there will be more agencies watching the power company than under any government monopoly, and it will be done for cheaper because there will be no government to keep in line.

You dodged it again. Here's the question, try to answer it and stop setting up strawmen.

If citizens can overcome a private security company, why can they not overcome a coal plant company?

No, I didn't. Read it again. I'll bold the relevant section.

Done? Good. Why? Because it's too damn expensive.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

I am suggesting that they pay a company to provide power, and then select a company (from several) to keep that company in line. Because not everyone is going to pick the same agency, there will be more agencies watching the power company than under any government monopoly, and it will be done for cheaper because there will be no government to keep in line.

Actually, there will be a few half-assed agencies, with competing agendas, watching the coal company. Not everyone will pay to have an agency watch the coal company. I will assume you're paying to do it, so I won't. Furthermore, who's going to pay to watch the agencies? And I can only imagine the coal company will have connections and insiders with regard to the various agencies, and so forth.

Showing possible flaws in my suggestion does not back up your claims that a monopoly is better. Try harder.

AyeYo

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 103

That's irrelevant. Groups of citizens hire lobbiests all the time. If citizens can overcome a private security company, why can they not overcome a coal plant company?

So, you advocate, in addition to taxes, and probably paying that same company for power, that they hire private lobbyists?

You dodged my question. I'll repost it.

If citizens can overcome a private security company, why can they not overcome a coal plant company?

Necessary expenditures like, Oh, say, housing, and food come to mind. You are suggesting they pay a company for power, pay the government to keep that company in line, and pay a lobbyist to keep the government in line?

I am suggesting that they pay a company to provide power, and then select a company (from several) to keep that company in line. Because not everyone is going to pick the same agency, there will be more agencies watching the power company than under any government monopoly, and it will be done for cheaper because there will be no government to keep in line.

You dodged it again. Here's the question, try to answer it and stop setting up strawmen.

If citizens can overcome a private security company, why can they not overcome a coal plant company?

ascent

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

I am suggesting that they pay a company to provide power, and then select a company (from several) to keep that company in line. Because not everyone is going to pick the same agency, there will be more agencies watching the power company than under any government monopoly, and it will be done for cheaper because there will be no government to keep in line.

Actually, there will be a few half-assed agencies, with competing agendas, watching the coal company. Not everyone will pay to have an agency watch the coal company. I will assume you're paying to do it, so I won't. Furthermore, who's going to pay to watch the agencies? And I can only imagine the coal company will have connections and insiders with regard to the various agencies, and so forth.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: ascent on July 13, 2011, 03:34:49 PM

That's irrelevant. Groups of citizens hire lobbiests all the time. If citizens can overcome a private security company, why can they not overcome a coal plant company?

So, you advocate, in addition to taxes, and probably paying that same company for power, that they hire private lobbyists?

You dodged my question. I'll repost it.

If citizens can overcome a private security company, why can they not overcome a coal plant company?

Necessary expenditures like, Oh, say, housing, and food come to mind. You are suggesting they pay a company for power, pay the government to keep that company in line, and pay a lobbyist to keep the government in line?

I am suggesting that they pay a company to provide power, and then select a company (from several) to keep that company in line. Because not everyone is going to pick the same agency, there will be more agencies watching the power company than under any government monopoly, and it will be done for cheaper because there will be no government to keep in line.

So we have Garret Hardin, Herman Daly and Paul R. Ehrlich. Start reading.

You. Argue your point. Prove to me that a monopoly on environmental regulation is preferable.

ascent

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: myrkul on July 13, 2011, 02:29:44 PM

I didn't point you toward the paper, I pointed you toward the concept. That you found a paper is immaterial. Care to address my arguments?

You can also add Paul R. Ehrlich to the above two authors. Garrett Hardin also had mutual respect for him as well. Again, I can't thank you enough for recommending Garrett Hardin to me - by doing so you have given me further armament against your arguments.

Right now I'm currently reading Ehrlich's book The Dominant Animal. I recommend it heartily. I think you would benefit from reading it: http://www.amazon.com/Dominant-Animal-Human-Evolution-Environment/dp/1597260975/

I've quoted Ehrlich before in these forums, but I'll quote him again:

"The scale of the human socio-economic-political complex system is so large that it seriously interferes with the biospheric complex system upon which it is wholly dependant, and cultural evolution has been too slow to deal effectively with the resulting crisis." —Paul R. Ehrlich

Link: http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/starting_over/

So we have Garret Hardin, Herman Daly and Paul R. Ehrlich. Start reading.

AyeYo

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 103