On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 2013/11/18 meekerdb <[email protected]> >> >> On 11/18/2013 4:43 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 11:23 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 11/17/2013 4:25 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 8:41 AM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 11/16/2013 11:36 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But I certainly take your point that there is a reason the >>>>>>>> government >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> trusted. However, it is not the government that is warning us >>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>> global >>>>>>>>> warming. It is in the scientific research literature. You didn't >>>>>>>>> find >>>>>>>>> lies >>>>>>>>> about drones or drugs or the Patriout act in Physical Review or >>>>>>>>> even >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> arXiv. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, but then they come up with this plan >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> What plan? Where is it? As far as I know there is no plan >>>>>> whatsoever. >>>>> >>>>> Here with "they" I mean the people with the most political clout, >>>>> access to the media an so on who campaign for the reduction of CO2 >>>>> emissions. Their demand seems to be for the signing of a global >>>>> treaty. This is a demand for empowering governments to further >>>>> regulate economic activity, now at a global scale, and one of the main >>>>> suggestions is some global tax based on carbon emissions. Is this not >>>>> correct? >>>> >>>> >>>> That's the market based approach to reducing CO2 emissions by charging >>>> for >>>> the externalities. But there is no treaty even on the table to require >>>> any >>>> particular solution or even to enforce any degree of reduction. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> that the way to solve the >>>>>>> problem is to give more power to the above-mentioned government. >>>> >>>> >>>> So even the proposals don't give any new power to governments - they >>>> always >>>> had the power to tax. >>> >>> This is too simplistic. Taxes have a long and complicated history, and >>> several types of taxes that are accepted today were very controversial >>> not so long ago. For example, the income tax in the US came into >>> existence in 1913, with ratification of the 16th amendment. My father >>> lived a good part of his life under the fascist regime in Portugal. We >>> had a thriving match industry, so there was a tax on lighters. I have >>> the license he had to carry in his pocket to use his lighter. This tax >>> would now be illegal because of a UE treaty that forbids this type of >>> protectionism. It was made redundant before that by the >>> post-revolutionary nationalisation and consequent destruction of the >>> match industry. >>> >>> Then, also in the UE, we saw the social security system turn into a >>> tax: first, people were convinced that they should put some money >>> aside and let the government take care of it, so that it is later able >>> to provide you with a pension. Now that this system is collapsing, >>> existing pensions are being cut, future pensions are uncertain and the >>> age of retirement is rising. Yet, people don't pay less to social >>> security. >>> >>> The pattern seems to always be the same: an initial reasonable plan, >>> then a slow slide down a long sequence of small "corrections" and >>> "mistakes" that eventually lead to pure obligation with nothing in >>> return. Now, most UE citizens are resigned to the idea that they have >>> to pay taxes to make up for past mistakes and expect nothing in >>> return. This was attained by a process of slow cooking. >>> >>>>>> You're protesting against a plan that you imagine. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Any >>>>>>> proposed solution that does not involve further government intrusion >>>>>>> in our lives is rejected. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> What solution is that? >>>>> >>>>> More nuclear power and geo-engineering. Both these proposals exists >>>>> and there is interest on the part of investors. They are always met >>>>> with a lot of resistance from environmentalists. I'm not saying that >>>>> all of this resistance is unjustified, caution is a good thing in >>>>> these matters, but I definitely see a lot of resistance that comes >>>>> from some moral framework that sees these ideas as fundamentally >>>>> immoral, even more so if someone can profit from them. >>>> >>>> >>>> Sure, there's a lot of luddite resistance fed by scares like Fukushima. >>>> The >>>> important role I see for government is driving the R&D to LFTRs. It's >>>> too >>>> big and too politically risky to expect private investment to take it >>>> on. >>>> It needs government funded and government protected development - just >>>> like >>>> the internet, spaceflight, uranium reactors, vaccination, >>>> intercontinental >>>> railroads, and just about any other really big technological >>>> development. >>> >>> I'll comment on two: the internet and railroads. >>> >>> The internet is the synergistic outcome of a number of technologies. I >>> am fairly certain that no government desired the internet as it exists >>> today. >> >> >> First, that's your supposition. If you named anything in the world "as it >> exists today" there would be some government, maybe even all people, who >> would want it to be different, not "as it exists today", in some respect. >> >> But it was created and developed by government funded organizations. By >> DARPA, by CERN. >> >> >>> I can be fairly certain because they're using large chunks of >>> our money to try to make it go away in its current format. Many >>> different protocols were dreamt of. Creating a working internet >>> protocol does not take a genius. It just so happened that TCP/IP >>> gained popularity faster than other alternatives. A very great part of >>> what makes the internet what it is today is open-source software. >>> Sure, many companies and government organisations got in that action >>> too for a number of reasons. But we saw an entire unix kernel being >>> developed in front of our eyes by a Finnish kid and his followers. I >>> remembered when this was laughed at, something that only a gigantic >>> serious effort by government and corporations could achieve. >> >> >> So you want to denigrate the government's role because the government just >> created the market? >> >> >>> That it >>> would only ever be a toy. Now it powers Google, the majority of cell >>> phones and several governments run on it. >> >> >> No, the majority of phones now use Android which was developed by Google > > > Just for the record, android runs on linux kernel... android is essentially > an user space layer on top of the linux kernel... Except that I mostly agree > with your position... This example is not something to show that "free" > market works alone... no kernel was ever develop by government anyway... so > what ?
My point is that the Linux kernel was developed by a community of volunteers asking nothing in return. The linux kernel is a tremendously complex piece of software, and people laughed when the effort begun. People still laugh at the idea that volunteers could tackle other complex problems, or that there exists a sufficient number of altruistic people to do so. This is a counter-example to these ideas. >> >> to break into Apple's smartphone market. But so what? Digital computers >> were developed by government funding during and just after WW2. I never >> claimed that private enterprise didn't create things. I was just countering >> your claim that government just obstructs free enterprise and everything >> government does would be better done by the free market. It's not true >> because some projects are too big and involve too many legal/political >> problems for private enterprise to risk them. The intercontinental >> railroads are an example because it would have been very difficult for >> private companies to obtain the right-of-ways without government >> intervention. The Panama Canal is another good example. Sure, in theory >> they could have done by private enterprise, but in practice it probably >> wouldn't have happened or happened much later. >> >> >> >>> >>> The initial history of the internet as we know it (circa '92 to '95) >>> is a history of circumvention of red tape created by governments. >>> Monopolistic government-backed telecoms made data exchange >>> artificially expensive. It still does, by preventing long-range radio >>> networks and open access points, purely for the purpose of the >>> protection of monopolies and total surveillance. >> >> >> Sure without the FCC everybody could just broadcast on whatever band they >> wanted - and all anybody would hear would be interference. >> >> >> Brent >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > > -- > All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
