From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Sat Jun 29 2002 - 16:18:53 MDT
On Saturday, June 29, 2002, at 04:49 pm, Phil Osborn wrote:
> Before the ever-busy "progressives" forced most
> businesses into the corporate mode, as distinct from
> the "trust," via "trust busting," all in the name of
> the public good, of course, even though it removed
> much of the liability for full damages that helped
> keep the trusts in line, substituting government
> oversite by bureaucrats hand-picked by the
> corporations they were supposedly regulating (whose
> old-money, coincidentally had funded the progressives
> trust-busting campaign), ... before all that, if a
> private company caused distributed damage to the
> environment that could be measured, as in polluting a
> river or lake or the air, then a class action suit by
> everyone impacted could be brought against them, and
> full damages extracted.
Umm.... Is that really one sentence? I thought I was verbose! :-)
> After all, we do all breathe the same air, etc. But
> to date, we have no effective, efficient and equitable
> mechanism for assessing the relative costs of our use
> of that commons.
This seem to be the crux of most disagreements. We can all agree to
leave each other alone. But what do we do in the commons where we
disagree?
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:06 MST