2013/11/19 Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> > 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,
Well linux was not the first kernel developed that way (BSD/Mach etc), linux is not at the start of the free software movement, the big difference is linux had more success... but anyway this is not due to freemarket... > or that there exists a sufficient > number of altruistic people to do so. What is free market having to do with that ? Quentin > 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. > -- 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.
