From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sun Feb 09 2003 - 12:55:32 MST
Kai writes
> Its structure that matters, not mass...To look on mass
> alone seems to be one of the positive feedback loops
> which normally lead to unwanted extremes.
Yes, quite. To anyone who supposes that it's mass alone,
just think for a moment which is more dangerous for the
occupants: a collision between two SUVs or between two
motorcycles.
Bill refers to
> an article published in the SF Examiner 9th Dec 2002 by Leonard Evans
> entitled 'We need higher taxes on gas' which eloquently sets out the case.
> ...
> Although there is no consensus on whether making vehicles more
> fuel-economic increases or decreases the total amount of fuel the
> nation uses, there is universal agreement among economists that
> increasing the cost of a commodity reduces its consumption.'
Yes, but the reason that an economic commodity is utilized
by freely participating individuals and firms in an economy
in the first place is precisely because it generates wealth.
*All* efforts to distort natural wealth-producing exchanges
decrease productivity and wealth creation.
Rafal writes
> ### Ah, exactly, *somebody* must save my life against my will. I must be
> deprived of the ability to move around, so I won't get hurt on the way.
>
> I have a different two-point plan:
>
> 1) Rounding-up busybodies in camps where they can interfere
> only with each other... to reduce unwanted interference
> and power of busybodies.
> 2) The freedom to propose restrictions on freedom must be
> restricted in order to save freedom.
Though a bit overstated (knowingly, for effect), I agree completely.
And from both an economic perspective, and from a perspective that
places as much value as is feasible on individual liberty.
By *taxing* an activity, however well intentioned, you invariably
weaken and damage an economy.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 09 2003 - 12:52:04 MST