From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Subject: Re: What keeps me from being Lib. (was Re: FW: news release:
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 00:02:33 GMT

In article <LEE.92Apr14151714@meercat.wang.com> lee@wang.com (Lee Story) writes:
>(dean alaska) writes:
>                                                 [...] When all
>   pollution violations are subject to criminal law and cost benefit
>   analyses of pollution are seen as making as much sense as cost benefit
>   analyses for burglars, then the important step towards a clean economy
>   will have been made.  But it can't start with the laws, it has to start
>   with the people.  This is a fundamental of the radical Greens (as
>   opposed to everyone and their brother who claims to be "green").
>
>   Just as some of the Libs here have trouble explaining the difference between
>   short and long term goals to new readers, Greens have the same problem
>   in explaining these differences.
>
>No.  If you are an accurate spokesman for these "radical Greens",
>their long-term goals are pretty clear.  From what you write, they
>would readily wipe their arses on the Bill of Rights in the interest
>of a greater good.  Our executive _does_ cost-analysis on burglary
>before deciding to pursue prosecution.  We should do more such (for
>example, when considering drug prohibitions).  Often we make wrong
>decisions.  Maybe with these "Greens" in charge of a much-enlarged
>police state we can be guided to the right decisions every time.
>"Pollution violations" according to whom?  Criminal penalties for
>spitting on the sidewalk (or is that organic, and "good")?  This
>sounds like a cross between _1984_ and Judi Bari's idea of Heaven.  No
>thanks.  I've supported some fairly "radical" environmental causes,
>but not this, and suspect you'll have to settle for a total membership
>consisting of the .001% lunatic fringe of the movement.
>--
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Lee Story (lee@wang.com) Wang Laboratories, Inc.
>              (Merrimack Valley Paddlers)
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you always make so many assumptions about what other people say so that
you can fit them into your neat little definitions?  Did I say anything
about a police state?  Radical Greens DO NOT look to an enlarged govt
for solutions.  That is why I said that people must support a concept
before it becomes a law.  The law will do no good if a small percentage
support it.  In a Green society, the central govt wouldn't be too
much bigger than for Libs.  

Doing a cost analysis of whether to 
prosecute a burglary is very different than doing a cost analysis of whether
a burglary should be permitted.  Today, it is considered acceptable to
subject my property and health to damage and injury so that someone
else may make a profit.  Is it okay for a burglar to subject a store
owner to crime so that the burglar may make a profit?  Please explain
to me what the fundamental difference is.

Please explain how preventing property damage or personal injury in the
form of polution is "wiping their arses on the Bill of Rights".
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18560 rec.autos:11640 sci.econ:3825