American Politics XIV

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Eh, I would agree in principle, except for the fact that once you make everything simply to raise revenue then the government loses one of its tools in being able to move a domestic agenda.

The government should not have a domestic agenda. How the people want to live, and what behaviors they want to encourage and discourage are up to the people. See my sig.

[TerraPrime]

The government should not have a domestic agenda. How the people want to live, and what behaviors they want to encourage and discourage are up to the people. See my sig.

Yes, and I'm going to ensure the power plant 5 miles down the road does not exude excess amounts of mercury or sulfur, how? With my guns?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TP,

Technically, that's what Tort and Trespass laws are supposed to address. The difficulty is they don't have force and effect until after damages have resulted. Regulation is supposed to prevent damage but even that doesn't always work.

[14th Dragon]

The government should not have a domestic agenda. How the people want to live, and what behaviors they want to encourage and discourage are up to the people. See my sig.

Ok, I went through all the effort to turn signatures back on, read the sig. I do not get the relevance. How does that relate to having a domestic policy? My point was the opposite of a stick but an incentive, the whole carrot thing I mentioned.

But to your posted point, how are the "people" supposed to setup the encouragement/discouragements without a system in place to make them stick? Mob rule? The government is not some distinct entity seperated from the citizenry. It is not as if some heredity rulers are setting policy. So I am very overall confused about your point.

[Ormond]

Regulation is supposed to prevent damage but even that doesn't always work.

And what do we have in human society that "always works?"

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Yes, and I'm going to ensure the power plant 5 miles down the road does not exude excess amounts of mercury or sulfur, how? With my guns?

Regulation of pollution ostensibly falls within the scope of protecting property rights, which non-anarchist libertarians accept as a proper role of government. Government should not be in the business of "encouraging strong families" or "promoting traditional values" or any such nonsense. Partucularly with such a barbaric cattle-prod as taxation.

[TerraPrime]

Technically, that's what Tort and Trespass laws are supposed to address. The difficulty is they don't have force and effect until after damages have resulted. Regulation is supposed to prevent damage but even that doesn't always work.

Yes, and who's going to draft the regulation, monitor it, and who's going to receive complaints of damage, adjudicate it, and mete out solutions, if there's not supposed to be government running domestic agendas?

On a personal note, I'm sympathetic to the argument that giving child credits or credits on house mortgage loans are both meddlesome and discriminatory. I would not be too sad to see those go. Where I part ways with the Liberterians is the notion that there is no worthwhile role for government to play in, well, governing, domestic agenda. I think, for instance, that tax credits for adoption is a good thing.

[Aemon Stark]

Regulation of pollution ostensibly falls within the scope of protecting property rights, which non-anarchist libertarians accept as a proper role of government. Government should not be in the business of "encouraging strong families" or "promoting traditional values" or any such nonsense. Partucularly with such a barbaric cattle-prod as taxation.

How does "protecting property rights" square with, say, air pollution disseminated widely from its source? You can't prove that a certain amount of air came from a certain place, so it seems clear enough that a piecemeal approach will not work.