Bugbyte

Meh. We're really not that far apart politically. I'd agree that the true financial crisis has been brewing for a very, very long time due to gov't overspending. No question about that, although I think when you are talking about the 'size' of the government you really mean control over its citizens.

And you are accurate to say that legislators couldn't sit by and waste a good crisis, but I think that puts the issue too narrowly for my taste. I'm certain that there was substantial pressure from banks, Wall street, states and special interests and some constituents to do *something*. I was surprised it took them that long to do it.

I think where we differ is on the role of the government as a regulator. Assessing the efficacy of a product is one thing - did it clean my floor or not? But expecting the consumer to 'know' what is the best product is unrealistic. The asymmetry of information at the point of purchase is huge and the more complex the product is, the less informed the consumer is.

I'm not a huge fan of the regulatory side of government, but the market mechanisms to improve safety often don't exist at the level of the private firm. A single example from my line of work - in the early 1980's a middair collision occurred between an airliner and a small aircraft. The result was a rule that required an electronic collision avoidance system in all commercial transport aircraft. The system and that rule had been held up by industry protests that it would cost too much and was unnecessary.

Since the installation of that system, there has not been a collision between commercial passenger aircraft and another aircraft in controlled airspace.

There are many, many examples of these types of regulations that would not and could not emerge in an environment of reduced government intervention. On the regulatory side, my experience with these people has not been one of appropriating power from the citizenry but instead one of protecting those who could not know what might endanger them. And sure, at the top, the maneuvering is political and there are times when certain government employees or institutions get on a power trip. But those are exceptions -at least in my limited experience.

Again, not so much disagreement on the side of personal liberty, but it's not clear to me precisely what that would look like as everything involves tradeoffs and downsides. Churchill once described democracy as the "worst best alternative form of government". The real question is what the transition would look like if a more libertarian form of government was enacted. Are there any countries currently exercising some form of libertarianism?

@HiJack - we're not having a political war, just a discussion! Since we're OT, I figure we can wander anywhere we want.

__________________
Want to:
-Find out about the iBug?
-Stop being a newbie? Take a look at the FAQ Emporium?
-Find out about carPC's in just 5 minutes? View the Car PC 101 video
-Help me kill my car PC
-Watch live video streams from my mobile PC? Check it out here.
-Where is the iBug?

MP3Car.com

 

HiJackZX1

LMFAO.... Yea this thread is jumping between the 2. Politics and the difference between a good and bad driver. Its just political stuff makes my head hurt, lol.

__________________
HiJack ZX1 CFSC
CAR PC ITEMS [35%]
INSTALL OF MULTI PC SYSTEM [35%]
BUG WORKOUT [0%]
INTERIOR MODS [45%]

HiJackZX1 Work Log
HiJackZX1 Website!

Please build up my REP.

eigenVector

You are correct. I define the size of government as how much power it takes away from it's citizens.


You're absolutely right; there was and still is substantial pressure from many corporations and organizations for the government to step in and fix the mistakes they made. They went begging to the government for money, mostly in the name of 'saving jobs.' So the government sees this opportunity to step in and start taking more control. It's what the people want, why shouldn't they? But look at what happen... The size of government never shrinks, it always grows. Companies that received TARP money under the Bush administration are paying that money back now, however Obama is refusing to accept the return without additional rules and power.


You're right, it is complex. However it's teaching American's to stop thinking for themselves, and to start relying to government to think for them. People need to learn from their mistakes, it's what makes us grow. It's what helps promote new, better, safer ideas!


Sounds like a perfect opportunity for government to step in and make people feel better, but lets play this situation out a little differently. Let's say government did not require the ECAS.
- This midair collision was heard about all over the country.
- The consumers decide to stop trusting the airlines (Why would they want to fly when this could happen!).
- The companies who made the two planes start losing money.
- These companies come up with a plan to earn the consumer's faith back
- These companies come up with a ECAS and required them to exist in all planes they manufacturer.
- The consumer's slowly start trusting the airplanes again, and there are no more mid-air collisions.

The problem is not the action taken to ensure safety, the problem is, when government steps in, it forms a biased monopoly over the requirement. One single entity creates the rules. When the private sector is the one addressing the issue, you have multiple different groups of people competing to correct the problem. It's their own reputation and work that's at stake here! Each of these groups gets to sell their safety product to the consumer. And the consumer gets to pick the best ECAS plan, instead of being forced to use the one issued by the government.


But that's just it, it's fine if government wants to 'inform' people about the risks of certain products. If the government wants to create a list of all 'safe' and 'unsafe' products and make it available to every person, that's fine. (Except, don't use tax dollars to do the research! ) But when the government creates regulations it forces the manufacturers to comply with these regulations. Basically forcing the consumer to pick from a smaller set of products.
As far as 'protecting those who could not know what might endanger them' goes, I don't think that's the problem. The problem is people don't care to know. They want government to do that for them, so they can go home and watch American Idol without having to ever worry about the decisions they make.


That's why our country was not founded as a democracy. It was founded as a republic. If you're unsure of the difference, you really aught to look it up, but I feel from the things you've said in our conversation that you do. As far as an example of countries that are currently exercising some form of libertarianism, no, there are none that I can think of. If you look at our nation's past, you will see that we were once a very libertarian country.
Why did Churchill say that about democracy? Let me quote Alexander Frazer Tytler:

All in all however, the growth in the power of government over these regulations causes people to put more faith in government, and less faith in their own thoughts. Each and every day, we make decisions; some big and some very small. However each and every decision we make is an important one. That includes the decisions we make when we decide to give up our own decisions to the government.


Well I'm glad you're hanging out in this conversation. Things that make you think, even if it makes your head hurt, are things that make you grow... Your thoughts are what make you unique.

soundman98

+1

Heather

I am in agreement - government's role should be to help citizen's develop the ability to think critically for themselves - a skill far too many americans lack today.

While there is definitely a need for regulation in many situations - but sometimes it is the case where regulation is not an effective means of ensuring quality, and here is where Americans need to be critical. Totally off topic, but food regulation is a great example of where Americans need to think for themselves. Like pesticide regulation:http://www.foodnews.org/ - here. (well i guess this is off topic).

Bugbyte

This sounds good on paper. But many distortions exist that will prevent it from happening. The first is that more than one company will attempt to solve this problem, likely creating several competing systems that are not interoperable, nor compatible with European solutions.

This is fine when one is talking about Blu-ray vs. HD DVD, Firewire vs. USB 2.0. Nobody dies when those product won't interoperate. To fully shake out the market and arrive at a single system will take decades. In the meantime, the collision problem will continue to exist and many people will die needlessly.

Not to mention - what if an airline decides not to equip, informs its passengers of this, they accept the risk, and collides with an equipped aircraft full of passengers who did not want to accept that risk but had it imposed upon them? They can't buy a collision free risk reduction airplane ticket for any price because they've been deprived of it by the circumstances of the equipage issue.

In addition, you neglect to take into account that the incentives for competition among the many aviation groups does not exist. In fact, it is in the interest of the aircraft manufacturers, large avionics firms and airlines to pool their resources, colluding to create an incumbent solution that they can then license to airports and other airlines to prevent collisions. They could then cut licensing deals with the airport itself that would require all users of that airport to purchase and install their solution rather than a competitor's. Passengers who do not desire this type of risk reduction will be forced to pay for it in spite of their preference, limiting choice and imposing unnecessary costs on consumers.

This seems at odds with your arguments. By refusing to act to coordinate a benefit, however sub-optimal, the government simply allows, through inaction, another organization to dictate a different, possibly more damaging outcome to the people.

If you're arguing that so-called government knowledge is worse than market wisdom, you'll get no rebuttal from me. The markets have a proven track record of efficient capital and resource allocation while the evidence against government wisdom is so vast it is laughable. But there is also equally ample evidence of collusion and greed among private corporations and organizations to the detriment of consumers.

However minimalist the Libertarian view of the state is, there is a role for government to play as a representative of the people whether a democracy, a republic, or socialist society. The difficulty is in ensuring that it does so. I don't really see how one could get from where we are to where you would like us to be nor do I think it would necessarily be a better place. Different, for sure. Better -can't really say.

__________________
Want to:
-Find out about the iBug?
-Stop being a newbie? Take a look at the FAQ Emporium?
-Find out about carPC's in just 5 minutes? View the Car PC 101 video
-Help me kill my car PC
-Watch live video streams from my mobile PC? Check it out here.
-Where is the iBug?

eigenVector

I would argue that Interoperability and compatibility isn't a requirement to come up with a solution. One solution would be for a manufacturer to create a component for an airplane that will protect it, and it alone. If a second airplane is on route to collide with this plane, it's of the best interest of the manufacturer to detect and avoid it. The plane doesn't have to establish any communication with the second plane to avoid it. This system doesn't have to be a system where both planes communicate with each other to avoid a collision. I would agree however that creating a system that did communicate with each other would be a 'safer' system, however I think it's up to the consumers to demand whether or not they want it, or simply refrain from purchasing. In the end it's going to cost them. As a consumer myself, I would rather have the simple avoidance system and fly on an airline with the best pilots than have to fork over the extra costs for the 'safer' option.


Again, why do we have to arrive at a single system?
And the collision problem will not exist, because nobody will be flying! The consumers will stop flying. Sure there will be some that will, but that will be a risk they obviously will be willing to take. Nobody is forcing them to fly. Even the pilots themselves will either continue to fly because they feel it is still safe, or they will demand an additional safety mechanism added. I'm a firm believer in greed and profit. It's a wonderful inspiration. You deprive the manufacturer of consumers, and most will give anything to regain their trust.


But they haven't been deprived of it. If you equip your car with headlights to help you see to avoid colliding an approaching car, that doesn't mean you aren't gonna collide with another car, and it doesn't mean you've deprived yourself of the headlights. What you have done is decreased the probability that you are going to collide with an oncoming car. You've given yourself a tool to aid you with your driving. Similarly, the manufacturer has given the pilot a tool to aid him/her with their flying, and their ability to avoid accidents.


You make a very good argument here, because you're correct. I believe it is the right of the airport to decide what it wants to require, but again this is another reason where competition comes in. If the manufacturer's do not convince the consumers that their planes are safe from collision, then the consumers simply won't fly their planes. If the airlines do not convince their consumers that they have the best pilots and the best equipment for the best price, they simply won't fly their airlines. Many consumers simply want to fly on a plane that will hold itself together, with an engine that won't fail mid flight, and a pilot who can think quick in tough situations to avoid accidents. With the addition of all of these regulations, the price of the tickets to fly goes up.

The same thing is happening to our cars in this country. Obama has announced a plan to require all new cars to obtain at least 42mpg by 2016. Is this achievable? sure it is. Is it something the people demand? Yes! But is it something the government needs to be demanding? I would claim no, because it's gonna add lots of cost to the purchase of the car, and many people just do not believe it's worth the additional costs. Many people, (including many people on this forum) simply want a car that will get them from point a to point b as fast and as safe as possible.


Last I checked, the manufacturers, the engineers, the mechanics, the pilots aren't dictating. They aren't using any act of force requiring anyone to fly their planes. The government is however using police force to require a system on planes that may not be worth the costs to everyone who is flying.


And when the consumers find out about it, it hurts the corporation. Personally I have no problem with 'corporate greed.' Our society has transformed in a way that shows 'profit' as being evil. The masses shout 'The more profit you make, the greedier you are!' There is no 'corporate greed', it's all wealth envy. Sure sometimes you see illegal and immoral actions taken by certain individuals to take unearned money by use of fraud, however in today's world where information travels at nearly the speed of light it doesn't take much to uncover these looters, and the consumers are informed. That's what giving the power to the individuals is all about. Give the consumers the power of information, that allow's them to make decisions for themselves. If people think the oil companies are evil because they are making millions in profits, then let those people cut their dependence on the oil company. If the people think an airline or air port is 'greedy', then stop flying there. If the people think Mcdonalds burgers taste bad, then stop eating them!


To be honest, I don't really see how one could get from where we are to where I'd like us to be either. It would require the biggest transfer of power since the revolutionary war. Secondly, the majority of American's have finally realized that they can vote themselves money. The democrat party is the party that promises to tax the 'evil rich' and give tax cuts to the poor. Obama's campaign promise was to give a tax cut to 95% of working American's, however not all 95% of working American's even pay taxes at all! What does this mean? It means it's going to give to these people free money, money that was taken from the top 5% of the producers in America. It's a message that's being sent out to the world: "If you work hard, and make profit, you are evil, and will be punished for it!" So the dumb masses beg for 'change' and 'hope' and put their faith in 'government.'

How could a free society not be better than this?

MP3Car.com