On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Craig Haynie wrote: > > I have to disagree with the implications of his email. In a free society, >> people don't get together and 'vote' on how to use other people's property. >> With regard to oil, it is not for anyone to decide how it's to be used . . . >> > > That is incorrect. In cases when property aversely affects the rest of the > community, governments always claim jurisdiction over it. This has been true > in every society, free and unfree, throughout history. For example, if you > have a herd of cows and they are infected with hoof and mouth disease, > society intervenes to kill them. If you have a swimming pool in an urban > area without a proper safety fence around it, society intervenes and forces > you to put up a fence. In 1790 people building barns in Gettysburg, PA had > to build them according to a strict set of building codes to prevent > catastrophic collapse and to keep builders from ripping off farmers. There > has never been a time in the 400 years of European settlements in North > American when government did not intervene often and forcefully in the use > of some types of private property. I agree that governments DO this sort of thing, but they shouldn't do this sort of thing. When you write that Palin failed to mention that oil is a finite resource... and that Palin failed to mention that global warming may be caused by fossil fuels, you are implying that she SHOULD take action on these issues. You are making a moral, political, statement. >From my point of view, you are wrong. Government should not interfere with the market. It is a logical inconsistancy to allow some people, calling themselves government, to have authority over others, no matter how many people support such an idea. It breeds a system which is institutionally violent, because if you fail to follow the dictats of these people, they will send men with guns to try to haul you away, or kill you. That's a political statement, and a political reality. [...] > Do we really want to bring up political issues on this board? >> > I do not consider the above sentences (by me) to be political. I am stating > well-known facts about energy and fuel. Anyone who wishes to understand cold > fusion, alternative energy and other on-topic subjects here must grasp these > fundamental facts about regulations, society and energy. For example, you > have to understand that cold fusion or some sort of magnetic motor could not > possibly be manufactured and sold in the U.S., Europe or Japan without first > going through extensive safety testing regulation and checking by > Underwriter's Laboratory. I have read many fantasies about secretly > converting cars to cold fusion or some other "o-u" energy source such as > Mills' hydrinos "under the radar." I know a few people who want to do that. > It is completely out of the question. It is also ridiculous to imagine that > you might keep a product's composition secret without a patent. You cannot > sell any product in the U.S. without revealing to UL and others ever single > technical detail, including the types of screws you use. > > - Jed > > My issue with your statement is not with the way that governments work, but rather with the implications that bureaucrats, like Palin, OUGHT to be taking action, as you were advocating. Sincerely, Craig Haynie (Houston)
