---> Mike Lorrey
> Olga Bourlin wrote:
> > From: "Alex F. Bokov" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > > > Libertarians don't favor
> > > > > outlawing stupidity, but stupidity should have its costs.
> > >
> > > It does, by definition, except when some do-gooder authority
> > > decides to redistribute these costs and protect the stupid
> > > from the consequences of their actions.
> > I would rather deal with a do-gooder authority than a do-badder
> Disobey Acton's Law at your own peril. Government is only interested in
> doing good for itself. If anyone else benefits, that is simple
> serendipity, or a means to an end.
It think that this is a moot point: government (and anyone else) has no way
of accurately assessing whether any action is actually doing anyone any good
or not. There isn't even a sensible way of measuring "good." So there is a
complete disconnect between intent and effect. If anyone (including
government) benefits, it was completely accidental.
Doing bad things seems to be much easier for a government (in the sense that
its easier to ensure that the target actually does have something bad happen
to it), but again you have the problem of disconnect between intent and
effects. Plus which everyone else will suffer eventually.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:58 MDT