From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Recycling Costs and Libertarian Candidates
Date: 26 Jul 92 15:26:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA

In article <1992Jul26.021825.14405@aero.org>,
foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.225331.15756@morrow.stanford.edu> GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
>Actually we are both passing the buck. The producer passes the buck
>to the consumer for disposal of the wastes that the producer includes
>with her products. Ath consumer passes the buck of disposal costs
>to the city taxpayers (in Redondo Beach at least) who pay for the
>cost of the waste disposal.

Well the latter is clearly unacceptable to a libertarian because it
is socializing the cost of waste disposal.  I thought I had made it
clear in an earlier post that we want each individual to bear the
cost of dispossing of that which from their perspective is waste.
The producer is not passing waste to the consumer.  She is passing a
total package of content and packaging and it is up to the person
who buys that package to decide what part of it is waste.  If you
buy a frozen dinner with peas and you don't like peas so you don't
eat them, the peas are waste as far as you're concerned even though
that was never the intent of the producer.  If the producer provides
you with a recyclable container and you throw it in the trash you
had similarly reinterpreted the intentions of the person who
provided it.

All of this is fine as far as I'm concerned because you assumed
responsibility for all of what you bought when you voluntarily
purchased it.  If you do not have to bear the cost of disposing of
the waste portion you have no incentive to buy things with little
waste.  If you do, it is up to you to trade of the costs and
conveniences involved on both sides.

>>packaging their product -- don't buy it.  Then write to the company
>
>It just so happens that letter writing is one of my main pastimes,
>to CEOs, Politicians, papers etc. I haven't yet written any to the
>papers to give more space to Libertarians, even though I understand
>well the problem of minor candidates getting publicity having run
>for the State Assembly in 1976.

Keep in mind that you can also write "an open letter to the xyz
company" and send that to the paper as well as to the company.  Or
you can  write a letter to the paper telling them about how you
write letters to companies and them perhaps you'll inspire someone
else to do the same.

>>If you believe that, what are you doing to see that the necessary
>>research to support that position gets done?
>>
>
>Voting for Al Gore amongst other things. Another thing I am doing is voting

If that means you think he is going to vote taxpayer money to pay
for the research you are still saying that you want someone else to
pay the cost of promoting what you believe in.  In my book that's
just as bad as socializing the cost of waste disposal.

>for women for the US Senate. Many women are more concerned about the
>environment than are the men, in particular one running for the long seat.

I hate to have to tell you this, Richard, but this is a grossly
sexist remark.  I know women who could care less about the
environment and men who care a whole lot.  This is a gross
generalization that ranks up their with idea like blacks are all
better basketball players all asians are brains.  I way be the way I
am partly because I'm a woman, but I expect people to vote for me
because I am what *I* am, not because I'm a woman.

>Richard Foy

/June
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton