We now understand in a way we did not when the common law was developed that the destruction of wetlands harms us. That is why I'm drawing a comparison between wetlands regulation and smoking out your neighbor. The principle is the same.

You can pull a Pombo on me and try to pretend the science is otherwise, but that's a different story.

And this is why the government rarely dictates price or requires certain levels of consumption. Most regulation takes a different form. An obvious counterexample is the situation of a regulated monopoly, where any college freshman who's taken Ec 101 can explain why the market will not yield optimum results. But that's usually not what government regulation entails.

OK. If you want to talk specifics, I'm game.

My point is that a so-called "free" market relies on quite a bit of government regulation. Property law, contract law and tort law are all ways in which the government regulates the market.

Perhaps you have something else in mind when you refer to "free" markets, but it seems to me that you are referring to the process by which the market is regulated -- i.e., by private actions brought in common law rather than other forms of government action -- rather than the substance. If we want to protect wetlands, judges (a government actor) can construe the tort of nuisance to prevent you from doing all sorts of things with your wetlands that will have an effect on your neighbors by ruling that they have a property right to be free of the effects of your actions.

I get the principle, but I'm not sure how you can say that I'm infringing someone's property rights (under present law) if I light a fire in my fireplace. And yet burning wood creates some pollution. If those costs are internalized, the wood should cost more.

Intellectual dishonesty?
 

I'm guessing these friends were also convinced by the idea that Clinton's perjury wasn't so bad because it's not like it was the first time someone had lied under oath.

No surprize here but I am confused again.....
 

What about the possibility that they are doing some sort of searching for which they couldn't possibly get a warrant -- e.g., data mining.

eta: stp

eata: five-peat!

I have no argument with the fact that the world is interconnected. But when you declare someones property is a wetland you are infringing on their property rights to benefit society at large. That is fine. That is what governments do. I am just saying that the property owner should be compensated. Just like if you condemned his property to create a nature preserve. You would compensate him. But if you tell him to turn his property into a nature preserve you don't. Not fair.

Funny you should bring up Pombo because we are trying to recruit someone to run against him in the primary (thanks to the Gerrymander you love so much he has a safe seat). The guy we had recruited just backed out yesterday but I think we may have a replacement. If we don't find anyone McCloskey is going to run against him. I just had lunch with McCloskey today to discuss the situation.

Pombo is one of those idiots that thinks that property rights mean you don't have to respect public property rights. You can spew any crap of your property into the public domain and not have to pay for it. Pombo does not understand that whan you have property rights you are also responsbile for your property, and what exits it.


Yes, but then again efficient markets is what you are shooting for. Free markets is usually the best way to get there. Monopolies never produce efficient markets, so contrary to what Friedman, Rand, Buckley and Schafley thing, all monoplies have to be regulated to produce a more efficient market.



The problem is that a distinction is not drawn. If you own wetlands, and dump sewage into them and the sewage leaves your wetland and goes into someone elses portion of the wetland, you need to either stop it or cough up some dough. You should not be compensated for that. What you are doing is not just a nuisance but an infringement on either the public or some private owners land. These "nuisance" laws are really a watering down of the victims property rights. A "nuisance" law is usually a way for a landowner not to take full responsiblity for their property. You should have no right to dump stuff in a stream that will go down river of your property. There is the common law concept that has developed that if nature takes something of your property and puts it somewhere else that somehow you are only partially responsible. In the old days that may have been practical, but into todays modern society there is not need to let people to use the excuse to say "well the wind blew it off my property on to yours so I am only a little responbile".

However, that should not be confused with someone being prevented from doing something on their property that effects no one else. If I build a wall around my wetland and drain it, and what I do does not effect anyone around me then I can do it. If the government decides that my property needs to stay a wet land for bird migration, fine, the government can either compensate me for the restricted use of my property, or buy the property.






Home fires cause all sorts of problems in the LA Valley. Home fires produce a lot more pollution, especially in winter, than all the cars put together. There are Chimneys one can buy that filter out the smoke, or most of the smoke. But people seem to think, as you do, that they have a God given right to blow smoke into the public airways. The same goes for burning leaves - which is illegal. In our modern society there is no reason that people should not be held accountable for their externalities.

The government should not be able to seize land without compensating the owner, but neither should a landowner be said to have the right to pave over the land if doing so harms others.

A point of my posts has been that what you mean by "free markets" is not altogether clear. Perhaps I haven't been explicit enough.

Which is to say that defining the extent and scope of property rights is tough.

How can paving over my land harm others? If nothing exits my land, what harm could it do? So if the government stops me from doing it I need to be compensated.



That is where you and I disagree. You can confuse exercising the rights over your property with externalities.

The rule is simple:

You can do whatever you want with your property. If the government wants to infringe on that right you need to be compensated (of course if you buy property in a zoned area, then you knew that going in, so you knew you were purchasing property with limitede rights).

If you release some, gas, liquid or solid, from your property that leaves your property then you are either infringing on the property rights of you neighbor or some publicly owned land (in this country all land is now owned by someone the government). And you need to take responisiblity for that action.

Not complicated.

It can cause flooding, for one.

but there'd be fewer snakes.

But lots more mosquitoes, and I've never been bitten by a snake.

On the other hand, fish eat mosquitoes, and migratory waterfowl eat fish, and the reason we want to save the wetlands is to protect the migratory waterfowl. Maybe Spanky's right. The only way to save the wetlands is to pave the wetlands.*


*New board motto? Or at least a bumpersticker?

Well, I've been bitten by mosquitoes and lived, so I'd rather risk that then the chance of snake bite. (ignoring the whole West Nile thing) . And plus, getting rid of wetlands would eliminate mosquitoes breeding areas, like you the year you lived in that dry county and couldn't hook up with drunk chicks.

So you lose this round.

201-11

and I'm not in favor of draining wetlands, but I don't think it's fair for you to argue widelife with Spanky- it is not his strong suit.

Huh. I've seen plenty of homes with chimneys in Los Angeles, but I've never seen one actually -- you know -- used.

I always suspected that they were one of those nonfunctional features to be seen and admired, like crown moulding.

No more BoHo Woods.

Merry Christmas
 

Merry Christmas


<http://www.reuters.hu/card_dom/index_content.html

Merry Christmas
 

Wow. That is very cool.

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night.

Morality cannot exist without a higher power
 

Morality is either based on a UMC or reason:

(or maybe someone can suggest another source)

If you think that all morality can be reasoned out, what rational reason is there not to take (steal) the possessions of someone else if such possessions will improve the quality of your life and there is no way that the person you steal such possessions from can effect your life after you take such possessions?

Morality cannot exist without a higher power
 

Why do you need to establish some deeper moral principle? Why not look at specific circumstances, and work from there?

Morality cannot exist without a higher power
 

Translation: I will often delete conservative's posts, but never would delete a liberal's post.

Morality cannot exist without a higher power
 

What difference does a specific circumstance make? I just gave you a specific circumstance and showed that with out a deeper moral principle, the rational thing to do is the immoral thing. From a rational perspective, the rational action is not what most people would consider the moral action.

Am I wrong?

If I encounter a stranger with lots of money, and I know I can take his money, kill him, hide the body, and I am sure no one will ever know, why shouldn't I do that. What if I have an ear infection, and I don't have the money to have it treated? Shouldn't I kill the guy?

What rational reason is there for me not to kill him?

Morality cannot exist without a higher power
 

Does he have a lot of cash on him, or is it a bunch of credit cards?

Morality cannot exist without a higher power
 

Unmarked, untraceable bills. Small denominations. An entire garbage bag filled with the stuff.

Morality cannot exist without a higher power
 

Why?

Morality cannot exist without a higher power
 

What rational reason is there to to take what is not mine? If I can take anything I want from someone else, then what is there to keep someone else from taking what is mine?

More importantly, why do you think it is rational to take something belonging to somebody else?

Morality cannot exist without a higher power
 

Is he bigger than me?

Morality cannot exist without a higher power
 

If you are sick and some money will cure your ear infection. That is why. You can take the money , heal yourself and you are better off.

Morality cannot exist without a higher power
 

Like I said, there is no negative effect to taking his money. Whether or not you take his money will in no way effect whether other people will take your money.

Morality cannot exist without a higher power
 

I understand that this is your hypothetical -- but it is also counterfactual.

The level of lawlessness (real and perceived) in society (and moreso, in a region) has a dramatic effect on the likelihood that other people will try to take your money.

You do not live in a vacuum, and therefore, O great philosopher, there are rational reasons not to steal unrelated to a UMC.

S_A_M

Morality cannot exist without a higher power
 

You are from California, right?

Just blow him for the money you need -- and get your ear fixed. You are healed, he is relaxed, and you can feel the satisfaction for working for a living and earning your daily bread.

S_A_M

Life is Nasty, Brutish and Short
 

Your hypo doesn't work for this reason: in such a world, I am better off not having his money, for if I have all that money, I am the next to be killed to fix an ear infection.

And, once dead, I would expect to then be cannibalized, of course, because -- why not? Ear infection cured AND a full belly!

Morality cannot exist without a higher power
 

Yes there are other reasons not to steal unreleated to the UMC. If you get caught, you go to jail. But that has nothing to do with morality.

If you live in a civilzed society, and you reap the benefits, why live by societies rules if you can get away with it? If you can get away with insider trading and no one will ever catch you, why shouldn't you do it?

If the only rational reason you have for not stealing is that you don't want people to steal from you, or you don't want to go to jail, then you should steal if it you can get away with it. Correct?

Life is Nasty, Brutish and Short
 

That is assuming that if you steal, society will collapse and you will no longer be protected by societies rules. If you are going to get real world on me, you are way to insignificant to have a lasting effect on society.

If you figure out a way to cheat on your taxes and you are sure you will never get caught, why shouldn't you do it? Your cheating on your taxes, especially if you never tell anyone about it, so no one will ever know about it, will not detrimentally effect society.

Why shouldn't you do it?

Life is Nasty, Brutish and Short
 

Reputation. Which can itself be converted into currency, affection, or any number of other things I seek.

But, that having been said, do you like dark meat?

At some point in moral reasoning (if moral reasoning does not come down to self purposes) you have to make irrational assumptions.

You can either say that you want to survive and thrive, and therefore everything you do is in line with that purpose is moral.

Or you can try and rationalize morality, but in any such rationalization you have to just assume some things are wrong with out being able to rationalize them.

For example.

The killing of innocent people is wrong.

There is no way to rationally defend that. But we all assume it is a rule.

If you try and rationalize it by saying we set up that rule so we won't get killed. Then you are really saying it is in my interest of self presevation not to kill innocent people because if I want to live in a society where people are not killed then I can't kill innocent people. However, logically, if you can kill an innocent person with out having it effect how society operates, then there is no reason not to do it. Especially if it benefits you.

Therefore there is no rational way to defend "the killing of innocent people is wrong".

Life is Nasty, Brutish and Short
 

If no one ever knows you did it then your reputation, affection from other people, etc. will never be affected.

Are you trying to argue that all morality is based on self interest?

Morality cannot exist without a higher power
 

Oral sex is immoral.

Morality cannot exist without a higher power
 

That's ridiculous. Of course it will. You can't ignore the existence of a social contract even if it does get in the way of your argument.

Your assertions are self-contradictory. It is absurd to assert that I and I alone am immune from a social compact. Your entire construct is false.

My assumptions on not self contradictory. You have made the assumption that someone cannot disregard the social contract. Why have you made that assumption? Why can't I live in a society where everyone observes the social contract, and I can pretend to observe, but when other people have no way of knowing, I disregard it. Why can't I do that.

People in our society do that all the time. Where is this force coming from that forces people to observe the social contract all the time?


Wouldn't it be the most beneficial for the rational individual to live in a society where there exists a social contract so you can reap the benefits of such a contract, but then disregard the contract for your own purposes if you can get away with it?

Why can't a rational person do such a thing?

Why don't you answer the question:

How do you rationalize the statement:

"The killing of innocent people is wrong".

Unless you can give a rational basis for that statement, then you can't assert that morality can be based on reason.

Did we need one more UMC vs. Social Compact throw-down before year-end in order to meet our quota or something?

It is almost the New Year. Time is running out.