From: jredford@shearson.com (John Redford)
Subject: Re: A minor problem
Organization: Lehman Brothers
	<ALEXJ.92Dec29110509@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu>
	<1992Dec30.191026.6828@eng.ufl.edu>
	<1992Dec31.000140.27090@shearson.com> <lewchuk.725779355@therien>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 20:24:40 GMT

In article <lewchuk.725779355@therien> lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk) writes:
   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"?

Both. Either. Neither. Take your pick. I meant 'responsible' in broad
terms. If you have to restate it with smaller words then maybe you
missed the concept. Generalize. Think.

   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.

Gee. Did you get help with that concept? 'We' _are_ responsible for
the things that we 'do'. That dosent mean only things that 'we'
complete, or succeed in, or even physically act towards, it means
everything. That is what responsible means. It does not (here) mean
'can be held accountable for in a court of law' or any such specific
case. It is the entire range of responsibility.

   We have a responsibility to both ourselves and society in general with
   regards to the future, if we wish to act sensibly.  

This is the kind of redundant crap that polutes most posting here.
What is considered sensible is based on a notion of responsibility.
You are trying to define your terms with themselves.

                                                       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.

 Anyone who thinks that merely 'saving' money is good is a nut. Point
them at a graph of inflation and say "this is your money devalueing
while everything you could buy increases in value."
 You seem pleased to use the word 'responsible' immediately after
saying it is a vague word, without providing any definition of your
own. What the heck did YOU mean by it?

   >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.

This paragraph of yours makes no sense at all. Despite the fact that
your examples are bogus, you also make no specific case for either.
HOW did Judaism PUNISH PEOPLE FOR THE SINS OF THIER ANCESTORS AND AT
THE SAME TIME ASK THEM TO CARE ABOUT THEIR CHILDREN? As far as I knew
the Judeo-Christian persons in general did not believe that sin was
heritable. The idea that the past 'determines' the present and that
the present 'determines' the future is too simplistic and prone to
interpretation to even take seriously. I personally dont believe that
anything is 'determined' in the sense that there was ever a choice.

   >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.

Assuming you believe you can run out of ways to fail. Assuming you
believe there IS a way to succeed. Assuming you generally believe a
lot of shit that might or might not be true.

   >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.

 Lets see. When was the last time you attended a board meeting of a
major corporation? I have a feeling you havent bothered looking at
anything except the 'flash' you mention.
 Do you want me to believe that you would rather purchase dim,
expensive products?

   >>   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.

<* Sarcasm *> My god! Of course! It was just an Illusion that a lot of
NONGOVERNMENT persons happened to pressure the GOVERNMENT into doing
anything at all about admitting that the enviroment should be taken
care of. I never realized that the 'Green Movement' started with
Government Insiders!

   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.

You could sum this up as 'many people have no morals of their own and
will murder their associates if the government tells them to.' I dont
disagree with this. <* Think Third Reich *>

   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.

The fact that people are fools is irrelevant in the extreme. If the
fraud was 'simple & easy to see' that would not make it legal.

   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.  

The government is capable of getting Men With Guns to make Men obey
laws... That dosent imply that the laws are useful in even one case.
They might be, but the fact a law CAN BE ENFORCED does not make it
right. <* Think Camelot *>

   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.

 Here you apply a similar argument in reverse. Just because I cannot
enforce ownership of something does not mean that I do not own it.
Take your house. If an army attacks your house, you probably won't be
able to stop them. Does that mean that you dont own your house even
before this theoretical army conquers it? Assumign you believe it is
possible to own material, it is possible to own any material.
 You could own pluto. Heck, I'll sell it to you if you want.

   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).

Just extend the phrasing & it works: "If humanity is too stupid to
ensure its own survival it shouldn't survive." This follows from the
belief that it is 'Right' for the 'fit' to 'survive' which cannot be
proven to be true. It can be show that natural selection tends to
follow this model though, so unless you can beat nature, you lose.

I dont think it is wise to destroy all or almost all the fish in the
oceans, but it isnt universally morally wrong. If you put 10 mice in a
enviroment with a renewable food supply that is stable when feeding 10
mice enough food to survive on, is it 'immoral' for the mice (ignorant
of the situations details obviously) to consume enough food to be
full, rather than just survive? Humans dont know precisely how much
they consume and how long it can last. Even if they did, is there a
'moral' reason why they should "hunger and survive 1000 years" rather
than "be full and survive 10 years"? How about 1000 years and 999
years? Does that make a difference? If so then you must be using some
highly flexible morals.

   >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)

Ok, Bub. Fuck yourself. This has got to be the dumbest thing I have
seen today. Just say, "Where the Hell did the 'corporation' in c/d
come from?" and you'll get the idea. You didnt mention it in the
'problem' so how the Hell am I supposed to knwo what it is?

   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.

Sorry, I cent even pretend to 'answer' this crap. What kind of asshole
can use the phrase "blind rational decisions" is a mystery. Rational
decisions are never blind in the sense of ignoring available data.
Thats partly why they Are rational. Perhaps you meant 'blind emotional
decisions' or 'blind reactionary decisions,' but I somehow doubt it.

   >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.

No, the government does not have a monopoly on waste disposal. They DO
most of it, but that does not mean that you cannot dispose of waste on
your property so long as you do not violate enviromental safty
regulations and the like.

The fact that the government might tax some products though does not
mean that they will tax wisely. They could just as easilly do damage
as good, so it is not something that can be said to be unquestionably
good.

   >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?

Not so. That dosent HAVE to happen. Look at the not-so-thriving
hula-hoop business. There is a point that the economy will EVENTUALLY
recover, but that dosent mean it will happen in your lifetime even.
Many people might suffer in the meanwhile.

   >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?

'Fine' and 'Tax' are two different things, unless you are highly
cynical. Fines imply that the thing done is not condoned, and are in
line with inprisonment. Taxes merely imply that an activity 'should'
be skimmed to pay for some benefit involving it that is due to the
government. That is, you pay income tax for the 'privlidge' of living
here & having that income. You pay gas tax for the 'benefit' of gas
regulation & the like. There is no implication that income or gasoline
are 'bad'.

   >   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?

Gee. Debt leads to improved savings and investment. Proof: mortgages.
Stupidity in government is no different than stupidity in individuals
and society as a whole.

   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.

That's just wonderful. I am all for fun. I do a lot of things that are
not Right and Moral for Fun, but that dosent excuse doing them.

--
John Redford (AKA GArrow) | 3,600 hours of tape.
jredford@shearson.com     | 5 cans of Scotchguard.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism