From: jdb@surf.cis.ufl.edu (John Brothers)
Subject: Re: A minor problem
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 93 02:30:51 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.000140.27090@shearson.com> jredford@shearson.com (John Redford) writes:
>
> A lot of people may disagree with me.  I would suspect those people also feel
> that they should not be held accountable for the actions of previous citizens
> (for example, civil rights reparations).
>
>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.

Gee. You give me an either/or proposition.  Either people are responsible
for the future, or the past.  Seems to me that some people might not consider
themselves responsible for either, and some might consider themselves
responsible for both.  I don't think that concluding that some people refuse
to accept responsibility for either the future or the past is particularly
"stupid".  I think that your one-or-the-other proposition however, is stupid.

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

Who said anything about punishment?    And I agree, that most people
would care about the future, rather than the past.  Where have I implied
otherwise?

>
>
>   If the government was in charge of protecting future citizens, we could
>   see taxes on limited resources.  This would cause companies to either find
>   renewable substitutes or increase the utilization of present resourses.  In 
>   this manner, limited resources would be available longer.
>
>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
>cause them to switch from the old to the newer sooner, and that is
>more likely to mean they will use the new resource in an inefficient
>manner. 

Why would it be more likely that they would use the new resource inefficiently
with a tax, than without?  What logic are you following?

If you think all resources equal, then it dosent matter IF you
>run out of one so long as a substitue is available.  

yes................

>
> Similarly, the government would properly control environmental problems.  
> Most people I know, myself included, really lack the vision to predict
> whether what is dumped in the ocean today will affect the people of 100 years
> from now.   Will they develop some incredible cleaning system?  Will it
> turn all the newborn babies into three-toed tree sloths?  Who knows?  This
> is where the government should step in and regulate.  If companies were taxed
> on the amount of waste they produced, they would either reduce the waste,
> or find some means of converting it to something else, that was not taxable. 
>
>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? 

I do not state that I think that a group will generate wisdom.  A group
can generate guidelines.  If the EPA decides that nuclear waste should be
taxed at $X per pound, and chemical waste at $Y, air pollution at $Z, and 
then  if long-range studies indicated that Y was more deadly
than previously thought, the costs could be increased.  And if it turns
out that it was less deadly, the costs could be decreased.   

You might
>be less likely to avoid certain type of extremism by having a group of
>persons discuss the issue, but you wont actually get any closer to the
>Truth of the situation. The government can't predict the future.

I never said it could.  And I don't expect any sort of regulatory agency
can determine the TRUTH.  Social security doesn't know EXACTLY how much
money the senior citizens of 3 years from now will be needing, but they
can at least make a guess.  And next year, they can revise their figures.

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

Yes, that would be the point, now wouldn't it?

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

This statement probably belongs in some sort of FAQ.

>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?

if the alternate waste was taxed as well.........


>
>
>   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.

Shrug.   Put the word extreme in between up and debt.  I certainly can
handle the government having modest debts.  

>
>   Awaiting comments...
>
>Indeed.

Thank you for your comments.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism