I have yet to be convinced of the Galt's greatness: both coherence and civility, essential attributes of greatness, have yet to be demonstrated.
To take the well analogy one step further: what if the well in question is not "mine", but is shared by a dozen families. Whose property rights are then being violated by the errant pooper? The rights of all who use the well, obviously. The point is that there are collective, as well as individual, property rights, and that collective action is required to ensure that no individual infringes on those rights.
You assume that I assume:
That John Galt should care about 'humankind' rather than mankind. (There are humans that do not qualify as men...like you, Steve)
What, other than a penis, defines a "man", in your view? I say human purely because I prefer to include women. I like women. Do you?
that free markets has had little or no impact on civilization. (and the impact can only be measured as positive).
I don't remember saying that. I will say that free markets, and their positive effects, can only exist when a government exists to enforce the basic ground rules. Before challenging this, you might want to try observing the anarchic "free markets" of some developing countries, where economic competition is routinely conducted with machine-guns and bombs. Efficiency is not enhanced.
that government regulation should be the solution to the problem.
Government must regulate, as experience confirms that in the absence of regulation private entities will seek to enhance their competitive position by unacceptable infringements of collective rights. Government must also be regulated, which is the job of an active, informed, citizenry. If citizens are too lazy to inform themselves and regulate government, then it will abuse them, which will be their own fault.
Government must not be in the business of playing a guessing game.
Was it Hitler who 'guessed' Germanic superiority? What of all
tyrannical governments that 'guessed' the best form of economy? And what of those breast implants????
Is this supposed to make some sort of sense?
I wrote:
"Our ascendancy as a species is as much the consequence of our
ability to regulate each other as it is of our ability to regulate nature. If one group is behaving in a way which endangers collective survival - and we are, after all, a part of the environment - the rest have the right and the responsibility to stop them."
You wrote in reply:
"Pure politics, Steve, you little wimp. You are speaking of 'group'
warfare!...and this as man is about to depart a century of the
wholesale slaughter of one group or another...of countless millions,
Steve, you savage little snot!!!"
You would perhaps prefer "individual" warfare? I said nothing about group warfare. I said that people have a collective right to ensure that no individual or sub-group engages in behaviour deemed destructive to the whole. That includes detonating car-bombs and it includes poisoning the air or water. The line between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, obviously, is determined by the group through a political process. An imperfect process, yes, but what better one do you suggest? Dictation by you?
It is worth pointing out that 25 years of increasing environmental regulation have left both the environment and the economy in a rather more robust condition than they were in at the beginning of that period. Do you disapprove?
As a side-note, I should mention that the political process is influenced by individuals persuading other individuals that their beliefs are superior to other beliefs. Adopting a farcical assumption of superiority and slinging pre-adolescent insults is generally regarded as an ineffective way of accomplishing this end.
The Galt's intellect and maturity seem every bit as limited as his patience.
Steve |
