From: Reason (reason@exratio.com)
Date: Fri Jul 05 2002 - 23:12:52 MDT
--> Damien Broderick
> At 11:50 AM 7/5/02 -0700, Reason wrote:
>
> >And who finances this costly process of coercively subsidising people who
> >are unwilling to invest their own time in checking products that
> they buy?
>
> This seems a very strange question to me. Taxpayers finance it. By and
> large, it seems, a plurality of these taxpayers continue to vote into
> office politicians who pledge to sustain the system of specialists who
> check products for safety. Things could be done differently. All you need
> to do, if you really dislike this current practice, is to convince that
> plurality to call for some alternative way of doing things. A totally free
> market, let's say.
Well sure, this mailing list today, tomorrow the world.
(I assume you realize the original question to be rhetorical -- and the
above is a rhetorical answer).
Just for reference, it isn't a completely free market in the US or many
other countries (no surprise to you I'm sure)...there are a bunch of things
that are illegal to do, say and pay for in connection with electing
repesentatives and voting on bills.
> For example, if you find it unendurable to be prevented from crossing an
> intersection at high speed *just because some damned red light is
> on*, make
> your case to the citizenry and, if you are sufficiently persuasive, have
> traffic regulation abolished. If you feel *really* strongly about this
> infringement of your natural right to do what you will, drive through the
> red lights anyway, but you might not enjoy the consequences.
>
> >Let the market decide whether companies who label their product
> >contents do well.
>
> Yes, that's a good slogan for your political platform. It has much to be
> said for it, and it has indeed been argued powerfully in the USA (I
> understand) for generations. Let the voters continue to decide whether and
> to what extent the market should decide. How's that for a slogan?
I'm not a great believer in representative democracy as a force for positive
social change in populous and very diverse societies. As I've outlined
before, I'd much prefer a system wherein random selection replaces elections
and all disputes are resolved locally. But anyway, that's tangential.
> >Why, oh, why, does everyone seem to think that it's ok to force a million
> >people to do something because a couple of guys want them to?
>
> Why indeed? (Or a whole list of them, for that matter?)
Or for a million people to force one person to do something for that
matter...equally bad.
I don't have any problem with what you're devilishly advocating here -- if
someone wants to be a slave in a democracy, they should go for it. If slaves
wish to organize and revolt, or change their master, they should go for it.
Unfortunately, it's not like those of us who would prefer to live as free
individuals under a different system have an immediate choice in the matter.
Is it cheaper/more ethical to work towards a) getting offplanet in large
numbers, b) forming virtual nations that become economically powerful enough
to grant freedom to their citizens, c) building island nations that become
economically powerful enough to grant freedom to their citizens, d)
persuading citizens to change or dismantle current governances? None of
those appear to be short term proposals.
Insofar as your commments pertaining to d) go; personally I suspect the idea
of using the representative democratic system to attempt to dismantle that
system to be unproductive. I don't see it happening. The system is set up,
memetically, economically, etc, for continual self-perpetuating growth. It's
probably cheaper to build island nations, start over, and demonstrate by
example. Money talks. If a libertarian enclave survived to become an
economic powerhouse, that could only have a beneficial effect on those who
pay attention to such things.
Reason
http://www.exratio.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:11 MST