: And I commend you! On evidence. Playing safe sounds like a good idea, "lets control emissions just incase its the cause" There are fairly cogent scientific theories linked to some effects in global weather which appear very reasonable, but then there is also a cogent scientific theory regarding sun cycles and their effects on earths climate over history wich discount human activity as a very small influence. Read dieoff.org and the evidence is endless, refutations of otehr theories sounds good - until you visit cfact.org and the whole argument is turned on its head and we get presented with rigerous data and theory which refutes doomsayers. Both sites have been rubbished as 'propoganda' with equal vehemence and equally plausible / implausible reasoning. hmm.
: On top of all that are considerations about who exactly we would be 'saving' the world for if not ourselves (lets not pretend otherwise), about how long we would actually have before things got tough even if we went full power into polluting everything - and then about the slow changes in society in which demand for petrol transport is getting less, in which energy can be produced in non fossil fuel burning ways (huge arguments over nuclear power) and an apparent slow move away from heavy pollution concentrating industries. About what cost to human quality of life either controlling or not controlling various pollutions would have. So many factors - could we be being overly cautious and "presuming guilt until proven otherwise"?
I also concur. However, remember that regulation is oftena viable answer and should not be dismised out of hand.
: : the high level of interest amounted to little more than extortion.
: And who do we have to thank - its our 'disease selling itself as cure' government again.
That's correct, the cure the government provides is little more tahna way to protect the large money centered banks. However, it is quite easy for the government to provide a real cure: debt forgiveness or reduction and a sizable increase in the money supply. An increase in the money supply would end usuy and doubt with the current economic conditions that it would result in inflation.
: : Furthermore, the interest paid by third world countries in the debt market are, and have been for decades, exorbitant.
: Especially when you consider that illegitimate organisations like the world bank and IMF (largely funded with US$ taxed from its people) had no useful reason (other than political) to extend that kind of credit to the corrupt governments of fledgling nation states anyway.
Yeah the IMF and the World bank are mere tools: tools of multinationals, money centered banks, and rich bond holders. If the third world had some controll over their governing boards there could be a real possibility that these organizations could help developing nations.
: : Interesting. The "live off the sores" quote was quite insightful; it provides an interesting glance at your theory of government.
: A government must have 'people with sores' to excuse its activities as being 'for the people'. The last thing the huge and growing US govt wanst is for everyone to suddenly say "no thanks, ive decided to go it alone, to look on charity etc". What would it be left to do except police muggers etc. What power hungry social engineer would want to let the people live how they want? I would suggest that the reason government consistently fails in curing any problems, but in fact just 'holds' the level of symptons (and often fails even at that) is either deliberate intent (so as to protect their role), or the grossest od incompetence. Probably a mix of the two.
Hold on a second. Government can and has cured problems that the market ahs been unable to provide. For example, pollution, civil rights, basic scientific research, vaccination, elderly poverty, mass transit, etc. etc. Besides government is necessary to provide such common, public goods like roads, military protection, education, etc. that the amrket is either unwilling to provide or will provide a socially inadequate amount.
: : For example, the right of property, is it a negative right? Do I simply leave your property alone, and you do mine? Not exactly. Governments define what property is, who can hold, how it can be sold, where it can sold, etc.
: And in doing so it interferes with your disposal of your property in a quasi-fascisy manner.
You missed my point. Government exists before property. You can do whatever you desire within the rules of the system created by the government. However, you can not break those rules. For example, I can't sell children or buy human organs; these items are not considerd "property" they can neither be sold, bought, or regulated by the government. When you attempt to sell your children or your internal organs and your stymied by the government, they are not interfering with your "rights" to dispose with your "property." Property exists and is defined by government. Property does not exist prior to government; it is only a legal concept.
: : While the US anti-trust department does do this on occassion, free trade is a generally agreed upon principle within this country and except for a few exceptions like textiles in South Carolina and sugar in Florida, tariffs and quotas don't exist.
: But regulations do. America is a little cleaner than some nations. One time highly protectionist Japan used very targetted standards and regulations to bar foreign goods from being 'worthy of sale'. Stealth tarrifs. America does likewise, albeit to a lesser degree. the whole sickening issue of corporate welfare is another method of barring competition.
What's wrong with regulation? If it serves its purpose its good; if it doesn't its bad. Just don't reject ALL regulation a priori, it's a tad bit dogmatic.
: : Huh? Where does it bar corporate welfare in the consititution?
: Look over the rights as defined (esp in Bill of) and stealing property to prop up inadequate businesses (or anything) are not constitutional. Ofcourse with the states view of that 'irritating' document as a 'living' (ie malleable) set of guidelines it has become pretty meaningless anyway.
Could you provide a direct quote and an explication please?
: Besides, corporations could not possibly exist without handouts from the government, so who is really feeding upon who?
: Which ones? Someone must make before others take. Some business must make what is taken and used as handouts.
For example GM would not be the company it is today if the federal interstate transit system was not created. The most direct evidence I can provide for this is that a certain Sloan, the CEO of GM during the 30s and 40s (I think) actally drafted the legislation.
: : One final comment here, the actual political intrigue, one special interest group versus another, IS how our government acts as a sort of referre among different groups, currently at least. The only problem with this is that some special interest groups are more powerful than others. Of the 1200+ lobby groups in Washington, a little more than 800 are directly related to business. With sheer numbers on its side and massive amounts of cash, corporations often manage to twist government to its will and create legislation that benefits itself and may or may not promote the common good.
: Although a lot of those lobbyists are act to resist various proposals rather than propose, such is not a level playing field for anyone.
I agree whole heartedly. The problem is what should one do about it?