From: lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk)
Subject: Re: A minor problem
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 05:22:35 GMT

jredford@shearson.com (John Redford) writes:
>   Government is properly protective of the well-being of future citizens of
>   the country.  
>I dont see how you can reach such a stupid conclusion. Either the Past
>is responsible for the Future, and 'we' are responsible for the
>enviroment of 'our children' and 'our parents' are responsible for the
>enviroment 'we' are 'born into', OR the Future is responsible for the
>Past and 'we' are responsible for the enviroment 'our parents' created
>and 'our children' are responsible for the enviroment 'we' create.

Oiyoyyoy!  You're post is quite convoluted.  Define "responsible".  Do you
mean "morally obligated to correct" or "morally obligated to plan for"?
The first is with regards to the past, the second towards the future.  Real
responsibility is in the present, which means that neither the past nor the
future is in any way "responsible".  We are (or are not) responsible in our
present actions, which in turn combined with present circumstances determine
the future.

We have a responsibility to both ourselves and society in general with
regards to the future, if we wish to act sensibly.  It is amazing how many
people would agree that a dollar saved today, and invested today, is worth
two a few years from now, but will also not invest in improving the "green"
envrionment, the work environment, and the social environment.

>You cant punish people for the sins of their ancestors and at the
>same time ask them to care about their children.

Judaism did.  Christianity probably did at one time.  Shall I go on?
The point they made is that the mess we're in now is a result of the
past "transgressions" of our forefathers.  It is invariably correct: the
"sins" and "victories" of the past determine the present, and our actions
determine the future.

>Personally, I see it
>as more sensible to expect people to care about the future than the
>past, as they cant do anything to change the past.

Remembering past failures is also good since it leads to future successes
by process of elimination.

>Any company that wishes to be profitable for a long time has
>self-interest to cause it to explore new resources. All a tax does is

I have yet to see a company with any real long-range goals other than to take
over the world by being less expensive and more flashy than everyone else.

>>   Similarly, the government would properly control environmental problems.  
>>   Most people I know, myself included, really lack the vision to predict
>This is even stupider than your other paragraph. Why do you think that
>having a group of persons sitting together is likely to generate
>wisdom about the affect of ocean dumping 100 years from now? You might

I believe the jist of the statement, which you seem to have missed is that
government regulation based on present observations can force us to come to
terms with facts which are not very appealing, like the fact that in order
to maintain environmental balance we might just have to cut back on our
usage of resources.

The other point is that many people rely on legislation for what is "good"
and "bad".  That is, something is not a "problem" unless it's been legislated
as such and thus the "bad" action made illegal.

For example, take pyramid schemes.  People were investing in them because
they made sense (seemingly) yet the government clamped down on them since
they were unsupportable and generally fraudulent in nature.  People did not
consider what they were getting into until it was too late.

Now consider the environment.  Let's say we have no legislation about shooting
your wild eagles.  So a few hunters kill the last ones off and your national
bird becomes extinct.  The eagle laws are an example of effective environmental
legislation if only for the sole purpose of keeping your national bird from
the extinct list.  

Now again consider public resources such as fire, ambulance, police, army.
And sidewalks, and schools.  What else can we add to the list?  How about
water and air.  Air's a REAL public resource 'cuz there's no real possible
ownership of air.  Of course you can bottle it, but who says the bottling
firms own the air in the first place?  Air quality, just as public lake
quality, is a public resource and thus the government has the right and
obligation to protect its property.

The argument "people who are too stupid to be in business shouldn't have a
business" is a fine one for Ayn to make, but it doesn't ring true with
the environment.  If the Atlantic fishers fish the coastal areas to near
extinction, they not only put themselves out of business but put the entire
fish market into nonexistence.  If the farmers do the same, whammo, famine.
By "farmers" I mean not only crop-growers but orchard-farmers (okay, I'm a
city boy, I don't know the terms for the various farmers).

>The government can't predict the future.

Okay, let's say you're a scientist who has concluded that a combination of
sulfates and nitrates introduced in a certain fertilizer will tend to
increase crop production immediately, but in the long term will tend to
cause reduction in crop potentials.  What do you do with this information?
a)  Tell the media and hope they believe you, and hope enough farmers choose
    the more expensive brand even though it's better for them in the long run
b)  Go to a government agency and get it banned
c)  Blackmail the corporation: their money in order to quelch your results
d)  Hope this corporation doesn't try to kill you while doing (c)

The problem with (a) is twofold:
1.  You must establish personal credibility
2.  You must get past personal prejudice of the form "well, MY crops are
    still looking good, so I don't think my soil will fail, and besides, I
    can't afford the extra cash" -- the fear of lack of cash now, or the
    willful ignorance of possible outcomes tends to blind rational decisions.

>If companies were taxed on the waste they produce, then you would see
>them produce less of the things the tax classified as waste.

Which, in the case of products which are not easily disposable, is probably
a good idea.  Remember, the government still has a monopoly on waste
disposal.

>They MIGHT also happen to fire all their employees and go out of business.

And as such their business would be absorbed by a better firm.  So?

>They MIGHT also happen to produce extreme ammounts of alternate waste
>material. You seem to admit this, so why would you favour such a tax
>blindly?

The other waste material might also be taxed (less).  However, there's the
problem of conversion.  If you specify chemical content, it is not easy to
turn A into B, and generally if someone does turn A into B, it's VERY good
for everyone.  For example, if someone turned the exhaust sulfates from a
chemical plant into oxygen, hydrogen, and powdered sulfur (or even water
and powdered sulfur) people would be much happier because of less smog.
The jist of the matter is to tax publicly disposed material in terms of its
critical effect on the environment.  By the way, isn't littering a crime
punishable by fine?  If you regard this as "legal", why shouldn't we fine
companies for polluting the air?

>   For the same reason, governments should not run up debts.  This will affect
>   the well-being of future citizens of the nation.
>EVERYTHING government does affects the well-being of future citizens
>of the nation. That is their duty. If you can think of a way that debt
>(mere debt, not extreme debt) damages a country please try expressing it.

Debt leads to to extreme debt.  Proof: credit card addicts, present
government situation with massive deficits, shall I continue?

The Randian mean does not apply to humanity at large.  In a sense, we are
still a bunch of children playing with our newfound industrial toys.  In
some sense, we are better off this way: personally I prefer having fun and
not being perfect to being perfect and emotionless.

					Michael Lewchuk
					lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism