Maximum role of Government?

[ascent]

we mutually agree to coercion

This is ridiculous. If it's mutual, it's not coercion. If it's coercion, it's not mutual.

You were the one who pointed me to the paper (which I thank you for). It makes a number of salient points, pretty much exactly in line with those of Herman Daly. There is nothing ridiculous about it.

I don't know why you are now arguing against the paper that you seemed to imply would back your claims.

[1714951887]

1714951887

[1714951887]

1714951887

[1714951887]

1714951887

[myrkul]

we mutually agree to coercion

This is ridiculous. If it's mutual, it's not coercion. If it's coercion, it's not mutual.

You were the one who pointed me to the paper (which I thank you for). It makes a number of salient points, pretty much exactly in line with those of Herman Daly. There is nothing ridiculous about it.

I don't know why you are now arguing against the paper that you seemed to imply would back your claims.

I didn't point you toward the paper, I pointed you toward the concept. That you found a paper is immaterial. Care to address my arguments?

[ascent]

I didn't point you toward the paper, I pointed you toward the concept. That you found a paper is immaterial. Care to address my arguments?

You most certainly did point me to the paper. There is no confusion on this matter. The Tragedy of the Commons is a term coined by the author of the paper in 1968. Any derivation of the concept is an interpretation of the paper. Let's quote your words:

But I want you to look up 'tragedy of the commons' to see how difficult it is to allocate resources held in common.

Saying that I found the paper is immaterial is like telling me to read Jane Austen and then telling me that reading Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility is not representative of reading Austen. Regarding mutual coercion, it's very clear that Hardin is arguing for regulation. Care to address his points? And Daly's?

[myrkul]

Care to address his points? And Daly's?

I already did. And since you seem incapable of responding, I'll assume you concede.

[JA37]

Who, do you think, will be better able to pay for lobbyists, the coal-burning power company, or the citizens?

Funny, when we had a similar argument about who would fund a security company against a crime syndicate you made it very clear that such a syndicate wouldn't be a match against the massive funding of the private citizens. Yet now the argument is reversed? How come?

[myrkul]

Who, do you think, will be better able to pay for lobbyists, the coal-burning power company, or the citizens?

Funny, when we had a similar argument about who would fund a security company against a crime syndicate you made it very clear that such a syndicate wouldn't be a match against the massive funding of the private citizens. Yet now the argument is reversed? How come?

You cannot compare hiring multiple private military forces in response to a threat to hiring lobbyists. Please, set up your straw men elsewhere.

[AyeYo]

Who, do you think, will be better able to pay for lobbyists, the coal-burning power company, or the citizens?

Funny, when we had a similar argument about who would fund a security company against a crime syndicate you made it very clear that such a syndicate wouldn't be a match against the massive funding of the private citizens. Yet now the argument is reversed? How come?

You cannot compare hiring multiple private military forces in response to a threat to hiring lobbyists. Please, set up your straw men elsewhere.

Why not?

[myrkul]

Who, do you think, will be better able to pay for lobbyists, the coal-burning power company, or the citizens?

Funny, when we had a similar argument about who would fund a security company against a crime syndicate you made it very clear that such a syndicate wouldn't be a match against the massive funding of the private citizens. Yet now the argument is reversed? How come?

You cannot compare hiring multiple private military forces in response to a threat to hiring lobbyists. Please, set up your straw men elsewhere.

Why not?

Because the people already pay people to go represent their interests in Washington. these people are called 'Congressmen'

[AyeYo]

Who, do you think, will be better able to pay for lobbyists, the coal-burning power company, or the citizens?

Funny, when we had a similar argument about who would fund a security company against a crime syndicate you made it very clear that such a syndicate wouldn't be a match against the massive funding of the private citizens. Yet now the argument is reversed? How come?

You cannot compare hiring multiple private military forces in response to a threat to hiring lobbyists. Please, set up your straw men elsewhere.

Why not?

Because the people already pay people to go represent their interests in Washington. these people are called 'Congressmen'

That's irrelevant.  Groups of citizens hire lobbiests all the time.  If citizens can overcome a private security company, why can they not overcome a coal plant company?

[ascent]

I already did. And since you seem incapable of responding, I'll assume you concede.

No, I don't concede. But I'm not so conceited as to think I can say it better than others. I paired the author of your The Tragedy of the Commons with my recommended author Herman Daly in a Google search and came up with plenty of literature that will argue against your points. I notice that several books include essays from both. Apparently the two had a lot of mutual respect for each other (Garrett Hardin has since died). Again, I can't thank you enough for introducing me to Garrett Hardin's work.

The Google search was Garrett Hardin Herman Daly.

Here are some results:

http://www.amazon.com/Valuing-Earth-Economics-Ecology-ebook/dp/B002XQ223M

http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/gh/gh_skeptic_interview.html

http://www.wordtrade.com/science/earthscience/conservationR.htm

[myrkul]

That's irrelevant.  Groups of citizens hire lobbiests all the time.  If citizens can overcome a private security company, why can they not overcome a coal plant company?

So, you advocate, in addition to taxes, and probably paying that same company for power, that they hire private lobbyists?

As opposed to my solution, where they simply hire an inspection company? - a solution, I might add, which is exactly analogous to the private defense force one.

Private, independent ratings and standards agencies would be much more effective at preventing wide-scale pollution, because if one gets corrupted or co-opted, its ratings will diverge from the rest, and it will quickly be discredited. Someone pays off an EPA inspector, and there's nobody to double-check.

[AyeYo]

That's irrelevant.  Groups of citizens hire lobbiests all the time.  If citizens can overcome a private security company, why can they not overcome a coal plant company?

So, you advocate, in addition to taxes, and probably paying that same company for power, that they hire private lobbyists?

You dodged my question.  I'll repost it.

If citizens can overcome a private security company, why can they not overcome a coal plant company?

[ascent]

I didn't point you toward the paper, I pointed you toward the concept. That you found a paper is immaterial. Care to address my arguments?

You can also add Paul R. Ehrlich to the above two authors. Garrett Hardin also had mutual respect for him as well. Again, I can't thank you enough for recommending Garrett Hardin to me - by doing so you have given me further armament against your arguments.

Right now I'm currently reading Ehrlich's book The Dominant Animal. I recommend it heartily. I think you would benefit from reading it: http://www.amazon.com/Dominant-Animal-Human-Evolution-Environment/dp/1597260975/

I've quoted Ehrlich before in these forums, but I'll quote him again:

"The scale of the human socio-economic-political complex system is so large that it seriously interferes with the biospheric complex system upon which it is wholly dependant, and cultural evolution has been too slow to deal effectively with the resulting crisis." —Paul R. Ehrlich

Link: http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/starting_over/

So we have Garret Hardin, Herman Daly and Paul R. Ehrlich. Start reading.

[myrkul]

That's irrelevant.  Groups of citizens hire lobbiests all the time.  If citizens can overcome a private security company, why can they not overcome a coal plant company?

So, you advocate, in addition to taxes, and probably paying that same company for power, that they hire private lobbyists?

You dodged my question.  I'll repost it.

If citizens can overcome a private security company, why can they not overcome a coal plant company?

Necessary expenditures like, Oh, say, housing, and food come to mind. You are suggesting they pay a company for power, pay the government to keep that company in line, and pay a lobbyist to keep the government in line?

I am suggesting that they pay a company to provide power, and then select a company (from several) to keep that company in line. Because not everyone is going to pick the same agency, there will be more agencies watching the power company than under any government monopoly, and it will be done for cheaper because there will be no government to keep in line.

So we have Garret Hardin, Herman Daly and Paul R. Ehrlich. Start reading.

You. Argue your point. Prove to me that a monopoly on environmental regulation is preferable.

[ascent]

I am suggesting that they pay a company to provide power, and then select a company (from several) to keep that company in line. Because not everyone is going to pick the same agency, there will be more agencies watching the power company than under any government monopoly, and it will be done for cheaper because there will be no government to keep in line.

Actually, there will be a few half-assed agencies, with competing agendas, watching the coal company. Not everyone will pay to have an agency watch the coal company. I will assume you're paying to do it, so I won't. Furthermore, who's going to pay to watch the agencies? And I can only imagine the coal company will have connections and insiders with regard to the various agencies, and so forth.

[AyeYo]

That's irrelevant.  Groups of citizens hire lobbiests all the time.  If citizens can overcome a private security company, why can they not overcome a coal plant company?

So, you advocate, in addition to taxes, and probably paying that same company for power, that they hire private lobbyists?

You dodged my question.  I'll repost it.

If citizens can overcome a private security company, why can they not overcome a coal plant company?

Necessary expenditures like, Oh, say, housing, and food come to mind. You are suggesting they pay a company for power, pay the government to keep that company in line, and pay a lobbyist to keep the government in line?

I am suggesting that they pay a company to provide power, and then select a company (from several) to keep that company in line. Because not everyone is going to pick the same agency, there will be more agencies watching the power company than under any government monopoly, and it will be done for cheaper because there will be no government to keep in line.

You dodged it again.  Here's the question, try to answer it and stop setting up strawmen.

If citizens can overcome a private security company, why can they not overcome a coal plant company?

[myrkul]

I am suggesting that they pay a company to provide power, and then select a company (from several) to keep that company in line. Because not everyone is going to pick the same agency, there will be more agencies watching the power company than under any government monopoly, and it will be done for cheaper because there will be no government to keep in line.

Actually, there will be a few half-assed agencies, with competing agendas, watching the coal company. Not everyone will pay to have an agency watch the coal company. I will assume you're paying to do it, so I won't. Furthermore, who's going to pay to watch the agencies? And I can only imagine the coal company will have connections and insiders with regard to the various agencies, and so forth.

Showing possible flaws in my suggestion does not back up your claims that a monopoly is better. Try harder.

[myrkul]

That's irrelevant.  Groups of citizens hire lobbiests all the time.  If citizens can overcome a private security company, why can they not overcome a coal plant company?

So, you advocate, in addition to taxes, and probably paying that same company for power, that they hire private lobbyists?

You dodged my question.  I'll repost it.

If citizens can overcome a private security company, why can they not overcome a coal plant company?

Necessary expenditures like, Oh, say, housing, and food come to mind. You are suggesting they pay a company for power, pay the government to keep that company in line, and pay a lobbyist to keep the government in line?

I am suggesting that they pay a company to provide power, and then select a company (from several) to keep that company in line. Because not everyone is going to pick the same agency, there will be more agencies watching the power company than under any government monopoly, and it will be done for cheaper because there will be no government to keep in line.

You dodged it again.  Here's the question, try to answer it and stop setting up strawmen.

If citizens can overcome a private security company, why can they not overcome a coal plant company?

No, I didn't. Read it again. I'll bold the relevant section.

Done? Good. Why? Because it's too damn expensive.

[JA37]

Because it's too damn expensive.

And you won't have those costs otherwise? It's just in the current society you do?

[myrkul]

Because it's too damn expensive.

And you won't have those costs otherwise? It's just in the current society you do?

Well, I am advocating removing the single most expensive item from the list, remember.