Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (9723)	4/18/2002 9:17:36 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

The biggest problem? No, I'm intending to claim that manageing common resources, including abstract common resources, is an endeavour that is well suited to a central government. We where arguing about regulation. I never said anything along the lines of "the government should not regulate common resources". You talked about how just about every regulation (except perhaps a few minor ones) caused more good then harm. Many regulations have little to do with managing common resources. I also suspect that your definition of what is, and your determination of what should be, common resources is probably wider then mine. I'm not sure what you mean but "abstract common resources. It is true that the central government can be used to the disadvantage of the public, but I maintain that there is easier redress to this occurrance than if a private entity is creating a similar disadvantage. There are after all, elections to worry about instead of profits. Its usually easier to deal with the private sector when they create a disadvantage ot the public. If you don't like how they deal with things you can not deal with them. If you don't like your employer, you can get a new job. If you don't like a retailer or a manufacturer you can buy different products at different places. It's a bigger deal to leave the country then it is to leave your job. Also governments can and do go after you even if you do leave the country. Corporations don't have armies and large police forces to mandate your compliance with their ideas. Yes you can vote out politicians but in practice incumbents win the vast majority of elections, and many policies don't change no matter who is elected. Even the idea free and fair election with the most informed and dedicated voters would only rectify the movement of the government away from the popular will. If a particular abuse is popular even a perfect election system would not get rid of it. And in the real world democracy is not so perfect. Many abuses by governments go unnoticed by many people, or voters are more concerned about other things. You also have the problem of special interests. A person receiving a subsidy or other special benefit will care far more about continuing to receive that benefit then the a typical taxpayer will care about the penny he pays towards that subsidy. Even your favorite example of oil drillers paying little or nothing for the right to drill valuable oil is another example of government mismanaging resources. And you want it to mange more? The biggest problem is ensuring that elections remain free and fair since all other rights descend from that action. A big issue. However that's hardly enough. You could have free and fair elections that elect a government with little concern for important rights. I don't think either of these scenarios is likely in reality but I'd rather live in a very free dictatorship then a totalitarian democracy. Also your post was mostly a reply to my 1st point but how about the other two - 2- The government claims far more resources that it does not itself produce then any private company claims. 3 - The government doesn't have a profit motive, but its parts have motivation to grow and become more powerful. Power is every bit as corrupting as money, maybe more so. Tim