Quote:
Originally posted by Thorfinn:
Just for the record, I think our positions are not really that far apart, except you seem to prefer using government guns to force people not to hurt others, while I would prefer to just set the rules so that it is in people's best interests not to do so.
|
Actually, I think setting the rules correctly is better than using governmental guns as well. On this we can certainly agree.
But, some rules are hard to set right. For instance, I am for true-cost environmental accounting. You have to pay for the gas to run your mfgr. plant and for the products you use to make your widgets. But, you don't have to pay for the clean air you use (by polluting) without the Clean Air Act there to force you to. And, in fact the Clean Air Act just makes demands on the technology you use and how much you run your facility (keeping emissions down), but as far as the bottom line is concerned that is the same as a "cost" or a "tax" for harming the air. Now, how to put this into effect without the government and the Clean Air Act. I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice to do so, but I don't exactly understand how we'd do it.
Anyway, I am in complete agreement that shrinking government is fine (wonderful!) by me, and that it would be great to set the laws up to require less government intervention.