Craig Haynie wrote:
There has never been a time in the 400 years of European settlements
in North American when government did not intervene often and
forcefully in the use of some types of private property.
I agree that governments DO this sort of thing, but they shouldn't
do this sort of thing. When you write that Palin failed to mention
that oil is a finite resource... and that Palin failed to mention
that global warming may be caused by fossil fuels, you are implying
that she SHOULD take action on these issues.
I am not implying that; I am stating it outright. If oil is utterly
depleted or global warming ensues, our civilization will be
destroyed. In my opinion, it is the role of government to prevent the
destruction of civilization. That's the main reason we have
governments: to ensure the General Welfare. Also, to keep children
from drowning in Atlanta's back yards, and to keep barns from falling
down on people.
You are making a moral, political, statement.
Certainly. But I was also describing things as they, not as you or I
would like them to be. It is a fact that government regulates oil and
energy, and that it will prevent the sale of untested cold fusion
devices. You must take these facts into consideration. For that
matter, Palin and the GOP must take them into consideration. They
cannot make policy as if we have a perfectly free market.
From my point of view, you are wrong. Government should not
interfere with the market.
You mean you disagree with my opinion and with the U.S. Constitution.
The Constitution specifies that the government is responsible for the
general welfare. Letting oil run out, or letting the temperature rise
5 or 10 deg C would as catastrophic to the general welfare as
anything imaginable short of a full-scale nuclear war. So it is the
government's responsibility to prevent these things.
It is a logical inconsistancy to allow some people, calling
themselves government, to have authority over others, no matter how
many people support such an idea.
It may be a logical inconsistancy but we are stuck with the
Constitution and with our present institutions. I see no point to
speculating about how much better things would be if they were not as they are.
We can only change institutions a little at a time. We must find a
way to implement cold fusion and things like it in the real,
imperfect world. We cannot wait for institutions to be revolutionized
to allow perfect free market competition, for example.
I favor dealing with reality, rather than imagining how an ideal
world might work and then wishing we could live in that world
instead. Fantasy worlds bore me, frankly. I do not think human nature
would allow the kind of ideal society you wish for, in any case.
Human nature and our institutions do tend to be logically
inconsistent -- as you say -- and yet they work. I do not think it is
possible to make them logically consistent, and an attempt to do so,
such as the French Revolution, might well cause more harm than good.
- Jed
