Damnocrat vs. Repug - by Andy Rooney

[Thorfinn]

But the provisions are not currently in place, unless you intend to make all people file CAA, SARA, CWW, etc., paperwork, and become listed as hazardous waste generators. Honestly, how many people do you know who don't just toss their old Energizers and Duracells in the trash? Compact flouresccent bulbs have become the largest source of mercury contamination, and they are almost exclusively consumer goods. Consumers are by far the largest emitters of VOCs, whether through their cleaning chemicals, house paint, vents on automobile gas tanks, etc. Factor in all the VOCs involved in getting those products to the consumers, and you find that to a first approximation, all pollution comes from consumers...

[Timber Loftis]

God, Thorfinn, you're making me itch to go read the collected Federalist Papers - and I should, as I have never read them all.

Yes, Scalia was right. The whole point is to protect the minority- the majority needs no protection.

And, the point about the Bill of Rights from #84 is also well-taken. But, perhaps the "we think there should be powers AND limitations because the gov't will abuse any gray areas" were right after all - because the government has and does place limits on the press. Without the specific no-no's detailed, I think these days we'd be in a heap of trouble.

While this debate is great, it is pointless, though. You mention our paradigm today, and we should keep it in mind. Our world would absolutely collapse if we untied all government agencies today. Sure, by the time our kids are grown anarchy may have ended, but you catch my drift.

Let me mention this. It is easily true that our Founding Fathers (FF's) were generally wealthy landowners, and that they wrote a "representative republic" that while ingenious also has some underlying assumptions - such as wealthy white landowners are and should remeain in power. (Wasn't there heated debate on making land ownership a prerequisite to voting?) And, there are a great many who wisely argue the Constitution upholds this structure.

Now, as much as we may elevate these personas on a moral and intellectual pedestal, there were just people trying to craft a government the way they saw fit. ALong about the time Jackson came into office, there was a strong "everyman" movement. During his tenure as president, there was a great vision shift regarding our government, and the will of the majority got a real foothold that has never gone away. Some say Jackson himself caused this (his arrival at the White House is infamous), others say it was just the American collective conscious at the time. I do not know all the specifics of this (as my readings on the era are limited), but I am sure you know about what I'm referring to.

Now my question is this: Were we better off being less majority-will-driven and being more firmly rooted to the representative republic model?

This only vaguely relates to the discussion, but I think it is important to realize what sort of system the FF's were trying to set up, and how one particular era in history changed the vision of that system. It is then important to ask which is better.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Thorfinn: But the provisions are not currently in place, unless you intend to make all people file CAA, SARA, CWW, etc., paperwork, and become listed as hazardous waste generators. Honestly, how many people do you know who don't just toss their old Energizers and Duracells in the trash? Compact flouresccent bulbs have become the largest source of mercury contamination, and they are almost exclusively consumer goods. Consumers are by far the largest emitters of VOCs, whether through their cleaning chemicals, house paint, vents on automobile gas tanks, etc. Factor in all the VOCs involved in getting those products to the consumers, and you find that to a first approximation, all pollution comes from consumers...

Doesn't have to be that way. There are "household use" exceptions under all these laws - so, yes, there is a huge consumer loophole. But, if we group plastics and glass separately for recycling, why not do the same with your basic household hazardous wastes - like batteries and Hg-containing materials? I mean, we could do it without it being too onerous. And, most would likely agree it's better than all our income tax gyrations.

Oh, and the auto sources are taken care of via other laws. Several auto emissions have been well addressed, with the few remaining exceptions being, generally, VOCs and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5).

Cleaning chemicals are more tricky, but I assert my 4 oz. jar of ammonia jewelry cleaner, even when taken in the agregate with other consumers, is not nearly as important as the 800 lb. anhydrous ammonia tank one of my clients has sitting on his property, when taken in the aggregate of others like him.

Sure, there are wrinkles in the idea, but I can cite you to some books (some I've read, some still waiting to be read) that likely iron out many of them. Wrinkles don't make the idea bad. Certainly the income tax model is a behemoth in comparrison.

[Thorfinn]

the government has and does place limits on the press. Without the specific no-no's detailed, I think these days we'd be in a heap of trouble.

More of a rhetorical question than anything else, but why?

Why should there be restrictions on truth or anything else in The Weelky Standard or Newsweek or The New York Times. I can freely choose not to read them. If you expose them as prevaricators, they will have all the credibility of a National Enquirer or Rosie, and no one will take them seriously. There are little to no restrictions on content on the Internet, but most people seem to be able discern between an activist diatribe and actual news reporting. Are you suggesting that the people who can make that distinction on-line will no longer be able to do so with written word?

[ 04-17-2003, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: Thorfinn ]

[Timber Loftis]

First, this article tells of a recent Florida case where Fox argued it was not obligated to tell the truth - and won. So, I don't think there is any such requirement -- FCC policy guidelines encourage truth in reporting, but do not *require* it. The rules I meant were general rules of publishing, distribution, etc. The FCC heavily regulates the air waves, for instance. This sort of regulation is appropriate because otherwise we'd constantly be having one electronic device interfere with another. Also, you can limit at the local level where newsstands may be located. And, you can ban porn.

My point is that, even with the no-no provided, the government banged up against the limit as much as possible. Like a natural creature, the government will seize all the power it can - and you and I agree this is a BadThing(tm).

I think to try to limit news to "truth" is to create an unworkable rule. It's not "truth" that is the issue we're concerned with, but the "spin" on the truth. That's simply impossible to effectively regulate, so let's let people use their brains on the issue. So, you're right.

[Thorfinn]

Rules about publishing and distribution? Somehow I can't see chaos breaking out if newsies stopped carrying both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. I also don't see the problem if Ted Turner were to buy up both these publications, and started running them to suit his agenda. NYT wouldn't have to change a thing, anyway. I would just view WSJ with the same critical eye I use with NYT and CNN, rather than the critical eye I use for NatReview or FOXNews.

I just don't see riots breaking out over it or anything. The companies involved would have a vested interest in making sure things never got to that level, after all...

[ 04-17-2003, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: Thorfinn ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Thorfinn: 1. Rules about publishing and distribution? 2. Somehow I can't see chaos breaking out if newsies stopped carrying both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. I also don't see the problem if Ted Turner were to buy up both these publications, and started running them to suit his agenda.

Sorry, I don't see a sequiter connection between these two sets of sentences. By "publishing and distribution" I meant where you can put a newsstand and common sense concerns like that. Things such as "no newsstands in the middle of a road or blocking a sidewalk." I don't know exactly how the FCC relates to newspapers, but I do know its general concerns are functionality issues: what frequencies diffent media use, how you modulate frequencies in fiber optics lines to allow for the maximum number of phone calls, etc. I don't think there is any content regulation of importance (though, it *is* a behemoth agency, so I can't say for certain).

[Thorfinn]

But, perhaps the "we think there should be powers AND limitations because the gov't will abuse any gray areas" were right after all - because the government has and does place limits on the press. Without the specific no-no's detailed, I think these days we'd be in a heap of trouble.

Ah. I see why you thought it a non-sequitor -- you were talking about the mess we would be in without the Bill of Rights, and I thought you were talking about the specific no-no's the gov't placed on the press. Never mind.

I'm not sure why the FCC needs to regulate things like bandwidth in fibre optic cables, though. It seems to me the businesspeople, with actual money invested in it, would act in their own best interests to optimize their income. So, if you want a connection through which you can hear a pin drop, you might choose Sprint. If you just want 60 minutes for 99 cents, and voice quality is good enough, you might choose Joe's Fones. The companies would have a business plan optimized for their niche, and customers could choose one that best suits them. There would be no lack of businesses like Consumer Reports to rate the various suppliers for a price, though there seems to be no lack of free, competent computer buying advice available on the 'Net, as long as you can tell the hackers from the hacks.

I guess a case can be made about radio frequencies, though I am not sure that would be that big of a problem. The first chief engineer whose signal drifted over into WTBS' range would be in big trouble, and may have to pay off all the advertising money WTBS lost in the meantime. I think that even shared resources could probably be handled on a voluntary basis, just as they are in parks and picnic grounds. If someone is already there, you don't just go over and kick them out. You find another place to sit down.

There would probably be a low-cost, free market group form spontaneously to coordinate the frequencies anyway, just as there was to coordinate domain names on the Internet, and to assign manufacturer numbers in the UPC system they use with the scanners in grocery stores. Totally voluntary compliance, and I don't believe I have ever heard of anyone using someone else's manufacturer number.

[ 04-17-2003, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: Thorfinn ]