--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ispiritkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ispiritkin" wrote: > > > To me, the central question to determine the virtue > > > of a policy is its ratio of voluntary action versus > > > mandatory action. Voluntary action means a person > > > is their own master. Mandatory action means a > > > person is someone else's slave. > > > Speeding laws, <snip a list of a couple dozen>, > > are all mandatory actions. They may be nuisance in some > > instances, but the far larger positive externalities we > > collectively share. > > (sigh) We are poles apart on our philosophy of regulation. I > certainly don't hate you, darling, as you suggested in an earlier > post, but I can see we have a LONG way to go before we can see each > other over the horizon.
"Hate" was a joke -- though I know such may not translate well across the internet. > > For starters, I don't consider these to be nuisances. They are > infringements sold as mere but necessary nuisances, built on earlier > infringements which were sold as practical solutions to non-problems. > > I wonder how constructive a convo on this topic could be. I suspect > my explanation of how those mandates are infringements sounds like a > lot of blowhard blather to you. Generality upon generality, and nary > a specific in sight (to incite, or to cite ;) Yes, sort of. That's why I get bogged down by von Mises and all. It can be a nice theoretical construct -- but when it comes to replacing such regulations with something that achieves the same effect, but with more "freedom" -- it usually is not forthcoming. But I am open c to being shown the the light. > The best I can do, I think, is to stick to a single topic and explore > that for a while. > > > > Consider the people who are affected by, say, oil drilling -- > > > While ownership of natural resources is an interesting > > question -- I was thinking about that the other day in > > fact, your view seems quite non von Misian, non-Hayekian > > -- outside of that tradition or school of thought -- > > where property rights and contracts between free parties is > > proposed to solve EVEYTHING. > > Um, funny you should mention it, I was actually going to propose > property rights and contracts to solve the problem of ownership of > natural resources. Now is that outrageous or what?! :p > > > > the > > > driller acts voluntarily, but none of the rest of us > > > have any say about our earth or its oil. The oil is > > > just ripped away from our earth without our consent. > > > No voluntary action there. > > > I am not sure I understand your ownership claim. If you > > went and picked a bucket of wild blueberries, are those > > really my blueberries? > > Can I walk in and claim my "stuff"? But how to divide > > amongst the other six billion owners? > > These are the questions that need to be figured out. I think they > could be figured out in a fair and reasonable way. And I'm an > optimist and an idealist in the extreme. > > > > But it's a fallacy to trap EVERYONE in the snares of no > > > voluntary action by way of lots of regulations. > > > So you would do away with the above regulations? > > That sounds astonishing. > > Well, uh, yeah. All two dozen-plus of them. > > > How would you replace the above regulations with > > voluntary action? > > Now there, *that* is a book worth writing. No, a 10-volume set, very > well worth the writing. Well, I hope the plan is to write the book, test the theory, and if it works better than the regulations in achieving the same result, then wonderful. If you are advocationg doing so before that, not so much. > Hans-Hermann Hoppe has a good start on it, along with some other > Austrians. > > > So campus PC is over regulated. Is all regulation bad? > > Are the above examples all bad? > > I feel like I need to pat your hand or hum you something soothing. I am not irritated. Just astonished if you are proposing doing away with all of the above without solid ideas proven with good research that shows your proposals work. > This is how I would say it: the regulations you listed are not as > useful or beneficial, nor as moral or as spiritual, as the > alternatives that would support the freedom and development of > interdependent individuals. And these are ? I am not suggesting there are not great alternatives. I see opportunity to streamline much regulation. I don't like micro management. I prefer alternatives without it. For example, pricing energy correctly with all of its many externalities, and the need for appliance, vehicle and power plant emissions go away. > > I also think that all of these things can be improved step by step, > just like they were degraded step by step. Whew, you had me worried. > Whew. I got to the bottom in one piece. How 'bout you? I am happy as always. But I still have no clue as to your practical alternatives. Beyond the freedom, property rights, contracts among free individuals rap. I know that one. Its I just don't see much practical solutions coming from it. A much used example, Milton Friedman used it a lot, but he may be way to left wing for you :), is that you don't need FTC to enforce basic honesty claims in advertising, or safety standards, because a companies reputation is king and if they lie and send out unsafe products, all these smart rational and FREE consumers will not buy from them. Nice theory. So many trip points -- that it isn't a practical alternative. The theory doesn't hold up. And frankly, I feel freer, and have more free time, if I don't have to be worried that organic tofu is really full of lead. Or that my HD TV is sending out deathly radiation. But maybe I am lazy and shirking the responsibilities of a of a true freedom lover.
