[ExI] Nobel laureates tell Greenpeace to stop, opposing GMOs
William Flynn Wallace
foozler83 at gmail.com
Wed Jul 6 16:04:13 UTC 2016
If the GOP were actually shrinking the federal government, that would be a
great thing IMO. They are not. I'd rather them have less power to tax --
not more. Yes, that would give less for your favorite programs here and
it's not costless. But the federal government is by no means shrinking even
in this area. dan
What' wrong with just trying to collect the taxes that are already owed? I
am certainly not familiar with all the various things the gov does, but I
am sure I could find areas that I'd shrink. I could also find areas that
need more money. Just shrinking blindly seems like a very bad idea. bill w
Wouldn't another libertarian approach be much more reasonable here: stop
stirring the pot for terrorism by getting involved in all kinds of foreign
adventures and playing global cop? dan
I might have agreed to some extent with this, but not after 9-11. They
brought the fight to our yard and by golly I'd chase them to the ends of
the earth. Now Afghanistan, like Iraq, Viet Nam and maybe others - I could
agree with you on those. bill w
Who or what is not limited by money in this? dan
CR has less money than the feds. Agreed? Bill w
You appear to want to just accept some level of local terrorism rather than
beef up security, because the incidence is low, or maybe because no level
of security can stop it all.
On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 12:03 PM, William Flynn Wallace <
> foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I have utterly no objection to private business doing these things, but
> nobody is
> > - mostly. CR does do a good job but they are very limited by money. I
> > them.
> Who or what is not limited by money in this?
> There's the issue here, if you're not really concerned about giving the
> federal government even more power and you're not worried about its overall
> competency, of whether the threat you're worried about is that big a deal.
> What's a good reasonable range for estimating this risk?
> > No, we aren't going to give regulators more money. Repubs to blame.
> Hell, they
> > won't even give the IRS enough money to hire more people to make more
> > than it would take to pay them. Stupid stupid.
> If the GOP were actually shrinking the federal government, that would be a
> great thing IMO. They are not. I'd rather them have less power to tax --
> not more. Yes, that would give less for your favorite programs here and
> it's not costless. But the federal government is by no means shrinking even
> in this area.
> >> If terrorists want to poison our food supply to get us, they could do
> it domestically just as easily.
> > All the more reason to give the FDA more money.
> I'm not so sure about that. The FDA already has a big budget. It already
> does enough harm as it is, especially in attacking things like supplements
> and in slowing innovation down to a crawl. As a libertarian, I'd expect you
> not to ignore that actual danger posed by the FDA -- rather than worry
> about the potential risk of terrorists poisoning the food supply.)
> > I am not a conspiracy theorist - by a very long shot.
> What does that term even mean? Do you believe no conspiracies ever happen?
> The term is too loosely used, I think. There are valid conspiracies --
> viz., ones that it would be unreasonable not to believe in. And then there
> are ones that it would be unreasonable -- given the evidence -- to believe
> in. But a tout court disbelief in conspiracies is unwarranted.
> > But we are not being careful enough about our water supply, food supply,
> > power stations, and more.
> Wouldn't another libertarian approach be much more reasonable here: stop
> stirring the pot for terrorism by getting involved in all kinds of foreign
> adventures and playing global cop? This would remove much of the incentive
> for terrorism in the first place. Sure, some terrorism will still occur,
> but it will likely be very low -- just like some theft still occurs.
> (Actually, the base rate for terrorism seems really, really low. Were this
> not so, we would so far more of it -- just not more of in well guarded
> places. This is unlike armed robbery, where when they started better
> securing banks, it switched to liquor stores and gas stations. So it would
> seem the base rate for terrorism is much lower than for armed robbery.)
> > Remember when someone, never caught, poisoned Tylenol, leading to the
> > of packaging we have nowadays? That could look like very small change.
> > hope I am wrong.
> But your suggestion here is something much larger: a more extensive and
> more well funded FDA and not a change in packaging. Now, you could argue
> you can't have one without the other. I doubt that. I think the coercive,
> centralized state solution to problems, especially potential ones, is like
> a scorched Earth approach.
> Sample my Kindle books via:
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat