THe GW Scan Is Still Alive, Amazingly
in [Drive]
|
Prev: Besides the Revolution, what influence do the French hve in USculture?
Next: Ridiculous Speed Limits
From: Larry G on 17 Jul 2010 20:39 On Jul 17, 4:32 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 2010-07-17, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...(a)Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote: > > > The Paradox is that the freedom we have has made us more > > environmentally aware than the USSR with all their regulation ever was..... > > Way I see it is that pollution is a violation of property rights. In the > USSR people had no property rights, thus pollution was much more wide > spread and far more harmful. > > The USA uses a model where the victims have to prove harm. Initially > this left most people SOL and companies with political power would > pollute at will. > > Eventually people were able to prove harm so the system shifted > gears. Now the government decides what amounts pose a danger. > This allows for a fascist (economic sense) system where those companies > close to the government can continue to pollute under limits set for > them by the government. (new companies or small unconnected competition > is left with all sorts of compliance difficulties) Regular people are > still SOL, their property rights are still largely ignored, but the > situation is somewhat better provided someone isn't trying to start a > business that has a connected and polluting competition. > > Private property brings about the long term interest of owners to > protect the value of that property and the respect/protection of it > prevents others from polluting it. > > Sure, some people will want to destroy their own property, pollute their > own property. But when they are held responsible for what leaves their > property they will find the containment/clean up costs to be too great > to be so irresponsible with their own property. your view is not that different from many of the environmental groups.... they believe that people are entitled to not have to endure pollution generated by others. How do you reconcile what is "acceptable", "safe enough" , etc if not an agency like the EPA?
From: Larry G on 17 Jul 2010 20:46 On Jul 17, 7:22 pm, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: > On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 10:14:08 -0700 (PDT), Larry G > > > > > > <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >On Jul 17, 12:16 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On 2010-07-17, Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > if we do not trust institutions to make the calculations and decisions > >> > that you discuss above, what does that mean? > > >> Trust in institutions is just asking to be taken advantage of. Trusting > >> an institution is going to going make running that institution highly > >> attractive to the self-serving sociopaths and criminals. > > >> > make sense what I am asking? If you do not trust the institutions that > >> > we have to perform the assigned missions - then who do you trust to do > >> > it? > > >> Maybe we shouldn't have very powerful large institutions where keeping > >> tabs on them is practically impossible and doing anything about them > >> even more so. > > >> > and if you don't trust any of them other than the military - does that > >> > mean that the military should be in charge of the country? > > >> I don't trust the military either. > > >so... we have the most powerful country in the world - and it's people > >have lost their trust of it's government? > > We never did trust it, so no, we haven't lost trust in it. No one > should ever trust a government, any government. That is why the FF's > wanted the people to have the right to keep and bear arms, so if the > government did what governments are famous for, which is to enslave > the people, the people could say no. > > >Oh.. and DAve... you oughta check out just how many "civilian" DOD > >there are in "cushy" air conditioned offices - GS-13's that making > >70-80K and don't know how to work the copy machine or the difference > >between a Predator and an MRAP. > > GS-13's that work for the DoD make quite a bit more than $70k -$80K. > But we're not trusting them, we're trusting the military... sort of... > > And they most certainly do know that difference. The ones I work with > can tell you the minutia of differences in the launch control software > for the Tomahawk missile in its various versions for Aegis, submarine, > etc. > > >so.. no one in this conversation really thinks the military should be > >in charge of the country? that's a relief.... > > Nope. Civilians should be in charge of the country, but we can't > trust them too far. Eternal vigilence is the price of freedom, and > that includes watching the gov't to see what they're up to, too. " we're trusting the military... sort of..... The ones I work with > can tell you the minutia of differences in the launch control software > for the Tomahawk missile in its various versions for Aegis, submarine, > etc." or 15 different civilian agencies fighting over who is going to do the next generation UAV and each one of them spending money out the wazoo to put together their pitch? or the different services all what their own uniquely-developed and maintained version of common technology? or the various DOD agencies fighting to build and maintain their own networks - sans industry-standard security while they all maintain unique computer configurations that cannot be maintained except by hacking?
From: Dave Head on 17 Jul 2010 21:00 On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 17:46:01 -0700 (PDT), Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: >or 15 different civilian agencies fighting over who is going to do the >next generation UAV and each one of them spending money out the wazoo >to put together their pitch? Yeah, those are "contractors", not the civilian DoD employees that we were talking about. >or the different services all what their own uniquely-developed and >maintained version of common technology? Carrier aircraft have different requirements than USAF land-based aircraft. Make landing gears strong enough to withstand a carrier landing, and you're wasting weight on a land-based aircraft. That's weight that could be carrying something more important, such as electronics for self-protection or electronics for better targeting. Combining versions is always a compromise of sorts, and if the enemy has made his aircraft in a no-compromise fashion, we will lose more aircraft and young men. Its like building a race car - its a competition, and 2nd place is simply "not winning." In war, that is not acceptable. >or the various DOD agencies fighting to build and maintain their own >networks - sans industry-standard security while they all maintain >unique computer configurations that cannot be maintained except by >hacking? The Navy is using a contracted-out solution called Navy Marine Corps Intranet, or NMCI. It is wicked. It works poorly, has a lot of restrictions that limit its use, and recently lost huge amounts of data for about 6 weeks when an e-mail and data center in Millington, Tn was flooded out. It is fairly secure, we don't ever seem to have successful virus attack of any sort, but it would be nice if it worked better and more friendly.
From: Brent on 17 Jul 2010 21:02 On 2010-07-18, Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 17, 4:32�pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On 2010-07-17, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...(a)Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote: >> >> > The Paradox is that the freedom we have has made us �more >> > environmentally aware than the USSR with all their regulation ever was.... >> >> Way I see it is that pollution is a violation of property rights. In the >> USSR people had no property rights, thus pollution was much more wide >> spread and far more harmful. >> >> The USA uses a model where the victims have to prove harm. Initially >> this left most people SOL and companies with political power would >> pollute at will. >> >> Eventually people were able to prove harm so the system shifted >> gears. Now the government decides what amounts pose a danger. >> This allows for a fascist (economic sense) system where those companies >> close to the government can continue to pollute under limits set for >> them by the government. (new companies or small unconnected competition >> is left with all sorts of compliance difficulties) Regular people are >> still SOL, their property rights are still largely ignored, but the >> situation is somewhat better provided someone isn't trying to start a >> business that has a connected and polluting competition. >> >> Private property brings about the long term interest of owners to >> protect the value of that property and the respect/protection of it >> prevents others from polluting it. >> >> Sure, some people will want to destroy their own property, pollute their >> own property. But when they are held responsible for what leaves their >> property they will find the containment/clean up costs to be too great >> to be so irresponsible with their own property. > > your view is not that different from many of the environmental > groups.... they believe that people are entitled to not have to endure > pollution generated by others. Most environmental groups want to prevent people from using their own land in unapproved ways. I do not. There is no approval required. Simply there is no fouling, no destruction of other people's property permitted. Someone could have their giant chemical plant but if they contain, treat, and/or store their waste such that zero goes next door, zero gets into the water, zero gets into the air, fine and dandy. A typical environmentalist view would be to control through approvals, regulations, etc. Control is the goal. essentially fascism or worse. I don't want to control anyone, simply protect people's property rights. > How do you reconcile what is "acceptable", "safe enough" , etc if not > an agency like the EPA? Such a government agency exists for political reasons. Chicago's drinking water supply is poisoned by BP every day, been going on for decades. The EPA says it's ok. It's just politics. Science has very little to do with it. Scientists that oppose the politics are simply fired if they get too loud after being ignored. The EPA creates a political image of protection, it is to keep this old system where the connected get to foul the commons (air and water) and other people's land because they have greater influence. The people figured out they were being poisoned so something had to be done to quiet them. The EPA is the result, but it is still the old unfair rights ignoring system with some patches. The only way to deal with this fairly is property rights and private property. The limit for everything is zero or as close to it as practicible. The later, the practicible, should only apply to the result of combustion where trapping cannot be accomplished. There is no excuse for what BP does, which is to dump their sludge in the lake for instance. As it sits with the EPA, if say those of us in r.a.d wanted to make our own refinery out in the middle of the desert and purchase thousands of acres of land around it, make sure nothing left our property but the final product and other properly treated substances we would never get approval. We could never meet the regulations, never make it through the political process in any kind of market viable time frame. We wouldn't pass something about contamination retained on our own property or some other issue. Big oil retains its stranglehold. Meanwhile, BP's NW indiana refinery just spews toxins into the region's drinking water supply with the approval of the EPA.
From: Dave Head on 17 Jul 2010 22:16
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 01:02:21 +0000 (UTC), Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >Most environmental groups want to prevent people from using their own >land in unapproved ways. I do not. There is no approval required. Simply >there is no fouling, no destruction of other people's property >permitted. Someone could have their giant chemical plant but if they >contain, treat, and/or store their waste such that zero goes next door, >zero gets into the water, zero gets into the air, fine and dandy. A >typical environmentalist view would be to control through approvals, >regulations, etc. Control is the goal. essentially fascism or worse. I >don't want to control anyone, simply protect people's property rights. What if "zero" is impossible, as it usually is? What if "zero" is unreasonably expensive, as it usually is? What then? Is it important that people in this country have prosperous work? If you require "unreasonably expensive" here, the work will just go somewhere else beyond your influence, and the people who would otherwise have prospered from the endeavor that is to be required to provide unreasonably expernsive pollution controls will be forced to take jobs that are not porsperous, jobs involving "Do you want fries with that?" and similar things. >The only way to deal with this fairly is property rights and private >property. The limit for everything is zero or as close to it as >practicible. "As close to it as practicible?" Now your waffling. What if that is still deadly over a few years? > The later, the practicible, should only apply to the result >of combustion where trapping cannot be accomplished. There is no excuse >for what BP does, which is to dump their sludge in the lake for >instance. Why don't you sue 'em? Don't you have a couple-3 people around Chicago that would join a class action suit? >As it sits with the EPA, if say those of us in r.a.d wanted to make our >own refinery out in the middle of the desert and purchase thousands of >acres of land around it, make sure nothing left our property but the >final product and other properly treated substances we would never get >approval. We could never meet the regulations, never make it through the >political process in any kind of market viable time frame. We >wouldn't pass something about contamination retained on our own >property or some other issue. Big oil retains its stranglehold. >Meanwhile, BP's NW indiana refinery just spews toxins into the region's >drinking water supply with the approval of the EPA. Wonder what the oil boys are going to do when someone invents the magic battery? |