No, they wouldn't, because it would become prohibitively expensive to continue to buy credits. It would become cheaper to cut down emissions.

edited for conciseness.

Unrestrained free market with zero government intervention is a terrible thing and has caused extremely serious repercussions throughout history (i.e. Adam Smith economics creating an underclass too poor to even participate in the economy during the early industrial age; the Great Depression; the financial deregulation crisis of 200... oh wait, we're here right now.) It's a tired argument, endlessly reiterated by people who have not learned from history and are dooming us to repeat it.

People who think the best solution to a problem the free market cannot solve (by the very definition of the free market) desperately need to take a microeconomics class, or at least read an economics book. Even a generally obsolete book like Wealth of Nations, which those wacky libertarian anarcho-primitivists are genetically unable to progress beyond, explains in very simple language why firms will in general never ever ever voluntarily stop polluting and why consumers will in general never ever ever spend the extra money to boycott a polluter's products.

Am I utterly wrong to speculate that unchecked capitalism would inevitably result in just a single super-organisation that's far more powerful than any government could be?

There are arguments for and against it. It's not really possible for a monopoly to sustain itself in most industries, because you usually have a diseconomy of scale. Monopolies normally only exist due to (government-created) barriers to entry. In the case where you have an oligopoly, game theory suggests that it'd be difficult for whole industry collusion to reach that point.

But, I mean, without a government you don't have property laws. So strictly speaking you can't even have an economy at the point where you have unchecked capitalism.

So we're not at risk from Omni Consumer Products?

Not particularly. A good candidate would be something like a software company, though, because they have an enormous economy of scale and they'd be well-positioned to leverage their monopoly in other industries.

On that note, I think it's absolutely adorable how Linux neckbeards attribute Microsoft's monopolist status to nebulously-defined nefarious misdeeds. A software monopoly is a totally natural market outcome in this sort of extremely rare situation. The fact that Microsoft has a non-zero amount of competition is what's mind-blowing.

I look forward to not having to drive so far to get to the beach.

It seems like there are also a lot of monopoly issues related to intellectual property rights. This seems to make sense because the concept of intellectual property is completely artificial.

I don't understand why we need more regulation against fraudulent business activities. Fraud itself no matter how it's perpetrated is a pretty simple concept. It's when you start making everything complected with micromanagement that loopholes start showing up. If there's a problem with the law being enforced, it's a good bet that this problem isn't that we don't have enough laws. Regulation just seems to be a layer of obfuscation that criminal companies can hide behind. I would instead like to hear that the government is going to start doing a better job of prosecuting fraud.

...well, I'm not referring to cold-war era fear of socialism. I'm talking about the founding of the country, and the primary concern and basic premise of the entire ordeal being limiting government to prevent oppression (and while we're on the subject, this naturally means to prevent oppression of the people by themselves).



Don't misunderstand me. I want government to protect my rights, and yes, even provide for the general welfare to an extent. That extent is, however, limited. You're not going to see me arguing too much against government building infrastructure and things like that, but there have to be limits. Basically I view the government as an entity whose job it is to keep things from being taken from me, not to give me things I feel I deserve (rightfully or otherwise).

Again, nowhere, not even close to anywhere, did I say that we currently have an over powerful, oppressive government. We don't. I'm talking about preventing the eventual progression towards one. And no, democracy does NOT prevent the government from being oppressive. Not even close. So far, the democracies have a real bad record of not staying democracies for long, for any number of reasons, some of which you yourself have admitted to. For example: people are generally selfish and disinterested in the long term. They like to vote money into their pockets and out of other peoples'. They don't like responsibility and they will gladly give things up in order to avoid it.



Yet AGAIN, nowhere have I said ZERO government is ALWAYS the best answer no matter the cost. I'm just talking about a balance. If there are two solutions, one of which is slightly more effective but involves the government to a much larger extent versus another solution which is slightly less effective but requires much LESS government involvement, I think that the second option should be seriously considered, for reasons which I have stated many times already. Otherwise you just continue to grow the "size" (influence, power, spending, taxing, personnel, you name it. "big" means "big", it's not a codeword) of the government and that inevitably leads to too much power on one side of the equation.

Haha, scientist calls climate skeptic an ******* on Newsnight. Brilliant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59P0AIcUoh8&feature=player_embedded

Isn't that the show that had the nazi on it(BNP leader)?
Neat show, I wish Canada had something like that. (do we?)

No, that's Question Time. That's a weekly panel discussion programme, with various politicians answering questions from the audience.

This programme is Newsnight, a daily roundup of the big news stories, famous for being incredibly tough on interviews.

Thanks for posting that. I'll have to shoot that at all of the idiots that I know that are making such a big deal out of this.

Hahaha, hilarious! It's in the very last second of the interview.

That skeptic guy is making himself ridiculous by saying 'the global scientific consensus has been exposed'. Incredible. That would be a massive conspiracy!

This one is even better, haha! You would think that Rush Limbaugh would be far more intelligent considering the massive size of his head.

See, it's that stuff in the brackets that's kinda important. What exactly are you opposed to? What exactly do you want to limit? 'Big' is a codeword insofar as it's a really ****ing lazy metaphor that averages over a huge variety of topics.
You want government to lower taxes? That's fine. Say that.
You want government to not try to influence politics of foreign nations? That's fine. Say that.
You want government to spend less money and save for the future? That's fine. Say that.
You want government to employ less people? That's fine. Say that.

I'm not suggesting any of those statements are things you (or I) necessarily agree with, just that those are sensible arguments that deal with real issues with real solutions. 'Big government' is just a horrendously lazy oversimplified metaphor that homogenises all sorts of economic, social, environmental, security, infrastructure and other issues into a useless lump that has no rational statement of problem or solution. Just resorting to 'big government = bad' is a stupid argument that you can fall back on with regards to any issue whatsoever, and offers nothing useful whatsoever as an ideological alternative.

The fact that you feel the need to put that **** into brackets, as if the mechanics of the real world are somehow less important than your lazy 'big government' concept, highlights the mental dissociation between this way of thinking and any useful interaction with the real world.

What about a government that has a lot of money, but little economic influence? Is that government 'big'?
What about a government that has a lot of money, but has much more economic influence? Is that government 'bigger'?
What about a government that has very little money, but an awful lot of social and economic influence? How 'big' is that government? In this case, I'm taking 'influence' to mean impact on national citizens, rather than international influence through trade and immigration policies - taking this into consideration certainly complicates this 'bigness' calculation. You're multiplying entities way beyond necessity.

This is not in any way a carte blanche defense of anything government does, there are many things that I do not want government involved in at all one way or another. My fundamental problem is that you're utterly ignoring how or what government actually does, and lazily opposing anything that just involves government with no rational justification for why.

As for whatever 'principles' you perceive your nation to be founded upon, I don't really give a ****. I'm pretty sure the rotting syphilis-ridden corpse of George Washington doesn't have some magical solution to the banking crisis or to climate change. We're facing 21st century problems with 21st century solutions, and these solutions involve government. The question isn't whether government should be involved, the question is how.

Don't take this personally, Bob, this rant isn't directed at you personally in any way, but I've seen this issue of 'big government' come up a few times and it's a really lazy and directionless basis on which to create an argument. You've said a variety of other things in this thread that do make sense, and you've (begrudgingly) accepted that some things do require government involvement. Figure out what you consider 'those things' to be, and what you consider 'those things' not to be, separate the two, forget this stupid 'big government' metaphor, and then we can have meaningful discussions in future.

Therein lies one of the problems. Many Americans, especially those on the "right" tend to see the U.S. Constitution almost as if it was a holy document & they tend to see the founders almost as if they were prophets. You can't make any laws in this country without discussing the "intent" of the founders. It's difficult to convince millions of people that James Madison isn't Nostra-****ing-damus when they follow an ancient text written by what Richard Dawkins rightly calls ignorant desert nomads as if it were historical fact. A ****load of these people actually believe that the U.S. is a Christian nation (totally ignoring the Deism of many of the forefathers as well as letters & the Treat of Tripoli) & that it was given to us by their so-called "creator". The U.S. will never become more progressive while we have people that think ancient "knowledge" is superior to modern day facts.

Mort-Hog, I completely understand your problem with what I am saying. I agree, you can't just apply an arbitrary "size" to government and then say that bigger = worse. Here's the problem: I don't have the time, the desire, or even the capability to examine every single feature and action of every government and decide on each individual issue what the perfect solution is. No one does. I have to work off of what I HAVE looked at. Now, when a specific issue comes up that I care about, I will of course study it and decide my stance on it based on the facts. When I say that I oppose "big" government, I'm extrapolating from these individual issues and how I decided on them to predict how I'll feel about other issues. As I said, generally the things that could be interpreted as "more" government involvement (roughly) are things that I generally don't like. Yeah, it's extremely imprecise and hard to define, but it's not a hard rule, it's a guideline. I don't look at an issue and immediately say "well a+b=big government, so I have to oppose this". I look at an issue and say "this feels like more government involvement than I'd like, I'd better look into this."

Summary: It's not my rule for judgement, it's just a (very imprecise and yes, arguably arbitrary) guideline for what I should look at based on my past opinions. I don't "lazily oppose anything that involves government".

And on your implication that the nation was founded on principles that government is bad, I'd like to point out that the founding of our nation was the creation of a government. So, that'd be a pretty silly principle. The general idea was that government CAN be bad, so be careful.

Mentat:
Well there's the difference between other countries and ours. You see, in the US, the constitution isn't but might as well be a holy document. See, it's the highest law in our land. That's pretty close to holy, wouldn't you say? The only thing is, the constitution was designed to be able to change if it should be necessary due to future conditions changing. That's why we have a bunch of amendments. By our law, if you think the constitution is outdated, then you should change it to be up-to-date. That's the only legitimate way to change the government.

The thing is, other countries tend to see themselves primarily as nations, whereas the US is more primarily a state. To be more clear, France has been France for a long time, and it has had more systems of government than I can count. You could probably argue enough to trace a "France" of some form or another back 2000 years or more. The United States is a government that can only be traced back to...1787, I believe. The United States is a very specific experiment of government, and it's one that is based on rule of law. That means everything we do MUST be within the constitution, or else our government is not the US government, and we are not the US.

If people want to do that...if they want to say "we don't like this, this isn't working" then that's fine. But in order for it to be lawful, they have to do it THROUGH the current system. Otherwise it's essentially a revolution and the creation of a new government.

P.S. I'm an atheist. I not only respect the constitution as the highest law in the land because it legally is, but because I completely agree with its general idea, and most of its specific implementations. I think it was and still is a great idea, if we can keep to it. And I respect our founding fathers because they thought long and hard about how the entire system would work. No, they weren't prophets, and they weren't always right. Far from it. But I have nothing but the utmost respect for the SYSTEM they created. That's why I say if you don't like the constitution, change it. And if you want to ignore it, then go live in another country where you can....because personally, I'd like to keep the experiment going.

The United States government policing the waterways instead of the free market solution of letting merchant ships carry weapons? This "economy" thing sure feels like more government involvement than I'd like, I'd better look into this.

the government has a MONOPOLY on the use of violence?!

I'd better look into this.

1776, surely? What happened in 1787?

The US constitution is indeed a remarkable and elegant historical document, and it makes sense within the hierarchy of legal systems to have a codified and amendable constitution (rather than a loose assemblage of common laws). The general legal process of progressing through different courts, finally ending up at the constitution does mean that most rulings generally both make sense and are constitutional, and prevents abuses that might be popular (such as cruel and unusual punishment). It does mean that certain unusual archaic principles, like the electoral college system, remain and are very hard to get rid of, but this is the case with English common law as well (probably moreso). From a purely legal perspective, the constitution is a 'very good thing' (TM).

However, culturally it has a rather bizarre component, this odd 'constitution worship' and a perspective that every issue in politics can be settled by addressing the constitution, rather than by rational analysis of the issue. This curious pseudoreligious aspect to the constitution is obviously irrational, and elevates it to a status of some shrine of patriotism rather than just a historical and legal document. It's a very important historical and legal document, but this worship of it can blind the sensible understanding of a particular issue, especially global issues like climate change, where nationalist doctrines are entirely irrelevant on this scale. If the constitution is the highest law of the land and trumps all other laws, then international treaties are the law of the globe and trump the constitution.

It is sufficient to provide a single counter-example to disprove a statement. Usually when the government is heavily involved in something it's because they have to be.

i.e. the creation and distribution of public goods.

I consider large (number of people) government a much, much greater threat than a large (amount of control) government. Most of the people in a large (number of people) government are appointed and should not be given as much authority as they are.

As such, I don't find your argument about government 'involvement' even remotely compelling.

I don't have a problem with the concept of a constitution or with it being the law of the land (federal). However, we need to start basing legislation on what matters today instead of on the intent of the founders, whose philosophies & world-views are dated & borderline insignificant. There's nothing wrong with having respect for James Madison from a historical viewpoint, but to pretend as if he & his colleagues were prophets & that the constitution encompasses everything that'll ever happen is ludicrous. Amending & ratifying is fine & dandy but there's going to come a point where that's not good enough anymore, if we're not already at or beyond that. Let me ask you something. What's wrong with writing a new constitution that encourages progressiveness & is based on a modern world-view? Why should be stick to semi-archaic language that even our highest judges have problems interpreting? As a society I think it's at least worth exploring whether or not we're capable of undertaking such a task. I think that we're more capable & if we turn out not to be, maybe we should explore whether or not our constitution has anything to do with our failure as a society in being capable.

There should never be a point where amending is insufficient. If you really want to rewrite the constitution, then just make a brand new one as an amendment and ratify that. Done, and legal. Also, personally, I see nothing really wrong with the current constitution. I think if we could stick to the way it is now, we'd be just great.


First of all, wrong, the government does not have a monopoly on the use of violence. We've talked about this. Secondly, if they did, yes, that would be a huge area of concern.

I also find your comment on size vs. power interesting. They are not mutually exclusive. Basically, you think that a million limited-authority government officials is worse than a single all-powerful dictator or a small elite class controlling everything? Like I said, they're not mutually exclusive. What about an all-powerful dictator controlling a massive amount of government officials?

Why exactly do you think a large number of government officials bad? After all, government involvement is never bad according to you, right? So why not let the government control everything? And to do that, you'd need a whole lot of officials to run everything.


Mort-Hog, I was referring to the ratification of our Constitution, but wikipedia says I was wrong, it was 1788. I guess it was written in 1787. 1776 was the declaration of independence, but that only really said what we weren't, not what we were.

Anyway, in regards to "constitution worship", yeah, I base a lot of my opinions on my agreement with the document....like I said, I would like to keep this experiment going. We should of course rationally analyze any issue, but I think that should be done with the confines of the constitution in mind. Like I said before, if we didn't, we wouldn't be the US, would we?

In what ways are we deviating from it now? Cap & trade systems most definitely fall under the interstate commerce clause; a system like this at the state level would make no sense at all. Climate change being a global issue, most policy relating to it has to do with our relationships with foreign nations, another area where the Constitution asserts federal power. Action or obstruction by lower level governments on this front would be unconstitutional.

Violence is illegal unless you are a government official. Therefore, the government has a monopoly on the use of violence.

My objection is regarding appointed officials who are given much more authority than is appropriate. A dictator would satisfy that definition.

How lazy. Sorry, it's not sufficient to invent a new argument to dispute just because you are not articulate enough to dispute the argument at hand.

But is that the US you really want?

The United States of America: The nation that is led blindly and confines its action within the holy text of its foundation

or

The United States of America: The nation that acts rationally and progressively as a modern example of a liberal democracy

If you were making a movie about the US, which tagline would you prefer?

CarpKing, we're really not too much right now. Mostly very minor things, if at all....that's a whole other discussion.

Jon, violence is completely legal for other people than the government to use. In fact, in both cases very similar rules apply....that violence has to be legally justified. Self defense is the obvious example. If someone tries to hurt me, I can use violence to defend myself. Not only that, but in some cases even initiating violence is legally justifiable, usually in response to a THREAT of violence. What violent acts is the government authorized to do that a citizen is not also authorized to do?

What is your problem with government officials being given too much authority? What counts as "too much"? Why can't we trust them with that power?

edit:


I don't think that working within the confines of the constitution is "being led blindly". The constitution is just a document outlining HOW we must do what we wish to do. There's nothing in the constitution (to bring this back to the original topic as an example) that I know of that says cap and trade is illegal. And even if there was, there's also provisions in the constitution that would allow us to make it legal.

I'd want the tagline to be "The United States of America: The country that sticks to its principles and accomplishes its goals under the rule of law as a modern example of a constitutional republic (with liberty and justice for all class you may be seated now)"

Climategate, sounds more like some kind of techno MIDI instrument

Murder.

Why should I repeat myself just because you don't feel like reading it the first time?

I'm asking you so that you say it clearly. I'm trying to make a point....that point being that apparently you are also wary of too much power in the hands of the government...or more specifically in the hands of too many people, I assume because that means that someone may get power who will abuse it. I'm just wondering how that is any different than what I am saying?

Edit: Also, I'd say you're right about "murder" in the context of punishment for crimes. That's about it, though, isn't it?

Yeah, that's a big difference with other democracies in the world, because they are totally not based on a constitution. :downs:



I definitely see your point, but I sometimes wish my people would put the constitution and everything related to democratic values and living in a free country on a pedestal like Americans do.

Sure, most people are aware and grateful that they're living in a free country, but the level of awareness is just not what it is in the US. So many just seem to have forgotten the basic principles of our democracy, the lessons learned by WWII and other historic events, the very reasons why we made things the way they are.

People in general just don't realize that when a majority determines what minorities can or can't do, you're talking about dictatorship. And ever since the nineties were over, an increasing majority of people just thinks they can do away with other people's freedoms simply because "they don't belong in our country".

I'm really concerned because right now the most popular political party are Wilders' right wing populists who want to forbid the entire Qur'an (among many other things that exclusively affect Muslims). Not that I'm afraid something like that could happen so easily (it would be against the constitution), but because a majority of people in this country is apparently willing to throw the general principles of democracy out the window just like that. I'm glad were not having elections right now.

If you don't understand the difference in responsibilities and liabilities between an elected official and an appointed official I don't think repeating myself a third time would serve to elucidate my standpoint.

Assault and battery.

touche :saddowns:

Who do you think it is that appoints officials? Do you think they appoint themselves in a vacuum?

And what exactly is legal about assault and battery by any part of the government?

A different appointed official.

Sometimes, yes.

Confinement.
Acts of war.
Criminally negligent homicide.

Please explain. What appointed officials don't trace their appointments back to an elected official who can be held responsible? And what assault and battery on citizens of the country is the government allowed to do? Acts of the government outside of the country are not really what we're talking about here.

Hmm. I'd guess... maybe... roughly 99% of employees of the government are unelected officials appointed by another unelected official.

You ever think about those NSA analysts who have bad credit card debt? DMV clerks who can print off a license with your name and their photo? State civil engineers who run a highway through your house because you dated their sister 10 years ago? Cops who are off their meds?

Do you remember electing any of these people? No? So why do they have more authority over your life than anybody you ever voted into office?

Of course, on top of all of that the government is afforded the exclusive right to grant permission to commit acts of violence. Actually the monopoly over the use of violence is pretty much the definition of a state according to modern political science, but who needs those crazy social science things.

Acts of war are inherently violent, aren't they? Are we not talking about the government having a monopoly on the use of violence?

What makes an appointed official running a highway through your house any different from an elected official running a highway through your house? Either way there is a highway where your house is supposed to be. An elected official can abuse power just as much as an appointed official can. There's just more steps between holding an appointed official responsible and holding an elected official responsible. They're all people, and if they are given power, they COULD abuse it. Is that not the EXACT same thing that I'm saying?

Also, the government is afforded the exclusive right to grant permission to commit acts of violence only if you consider the government the highest power. Personally, I believe in natural rights. I have every right to commit acts of violence if they are justified. Government does not grant me permission to commit these acts. The government is specifically prevented from denying me this right by...oh, what...the constitution! Which is based on the idea of natural rights! And you can spout your modern political science all you want, but no definition of state is so simple, certainly not our state.

Sure, acts of war are violent. We're not talking about that here, we're talking about within the country. If you want to talk about outside of the country, then you're getting into a whole huge extra discussion about international law and natural rights.

I accept your concession.

Holster your pistol there, bucko. Violence is illegal. You can legally engage in violence as long as you are responding to a threat, but only with a level of violence deemed appropriate by the appointed district attorney. Lots of noise, but no content here. All you've done is use some semantic massaging to turn what is literally granting a right into some kind of logical conjugate, but it means the exact same damn thing.
"Natural right." Give me a break.

How patriotic. Lots of really smart and well-educated American political scientists would disagree with you.