Walsingham

I don't think it's hypocritical. Being nice all the time just isn't sustainable.

Not exactly. Dumb regulation is just dumb regulation and it is onerous and harmful no matter what quarter it comes from. Keeping the scope and power of government small only serves to minimize the harm it can do. There really is little difference in being screwed of by a well meaning but stupid buerecrat or a feckless or even malicious one. Limiting their power protects you from every type. Now that is not to say government has no role to play of that regulation is a bad thing per se. I think by now I should have made that abunantly clear in both philisophical arguments and examples. But it MUST be applied carefully and with restraint and consideration. The government at any level does not know how to apply power judiciously or with restraint. As Regan once said, government is like a giant baby, an insatiable appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other. Do you think those idiots who wrote the everglades restoration act realized the end result of their well beaning but ignorant law would be thousands of acres of green sugar cane fields being paved over for houses? Which do you think did greater harm to the enviorment, the sugar farmers who had already stopped suing phosphate of the government that ran them off forever? Florida banned the use of phosphate fertilizer, that was a good and restrained regulation. They also partnered with US Sugar in redirecting water runoff to minimize the amount that seeped into the everglades. That was also good. The federal government came in and took the whole thing over and ruined everything for everyone because they did not listen to the people who actually live in the state and they did not even try to work with US Sugar. Isn't that rather like saying that living in a tent protects you against having to get builders in to fix your home? You've dwelt at length on the failure of individual govt initiatives. You have yet to come close to a convincing argument that the overall net effect is detrimental.

I agree it has a lot of potential. Although I'd encourage the makers to read the original novel to get some ideas on plot that go beyond the hilariously lame.

Sheesh, krez. Not everyone has 60 hours of free time.

I very much prefer ze fork.

The only thing I got crammed down my throat from Christians about christmas was that I had to take a break from being mean, be nice to my family, and help poor people. I can practically feel the evil rolling out of me in waves as I say that.

Then, unless I've misunderstood you again, you agree that regulatoin is necessary. You also agree that big government regulation is necessary. You are simply saying we need less stupid regulation. We differ because you view dumb regulation as a function of government size, and I at least see it as a function of dumb decision making. Strategic vs tactical solutions. I think your point about elected officials overriding expert judgement is often true. However, I would field a counter argument on two points, more for discussion than to score: 1. High ranking officials are sometimes parochial and a bit dim. Local officials are very often parochial an a bit dim. They also tend to have less experience of decision making. 2. In the UK we have something we call NIMBYism. Not In My Back Yard ism. If local officials always ruled, we'd have a hell of a time building big municipal works like nuke plants, garbage burners, dams and so on. Now, that may be an argument in favour of local government in some eyes, but really big projects are sometimes very cool. I'd say.

You can play just 5 min of Civ at a time? Pretty much. Benefit of old age: better self-control

Fwiiw, it's nice to read a direct address to a point, even if it doesn't get 100%. I'm over tired today, so I apologise if I missed something in your post, but I have two three rejoinders based on my understanding so far: 1. The fact that fisheries are hard to govern does not alter the fact that they 'need' to be governed or they could be effectively annihilated. Although I'll grant you that's more to do with the fish moving than it is system nesting. 2. I suggest you are factually incorrect when you say a badly managed farm can't starve anyone. A point you go on to prove (unless I missed something) in your example about pollutants. Although I can give you another example to look up. I was in Thailand back in the 90s and witnessed unprecedented flooding. This was caused by deforestation of the North East, which turned jungle into dustbowl. Land was bought and exploited privately. The buggers who profited either lived abroad or moved abroad on the proceeds. Billions of dollars of damage was done to people living hundreds of miles away. Farms away from the deforestation flooded, with crops and nutrient levels destroyed. 3. What I won't/can't disagree with is that governments do arse up their regulation of complex systems. We can have a very sensible discussion as to why. However, I'm going to take a punt and suggest it's largely to do with a lack of predictive understanding. The solution to this isn't to hope government goes away or that complex systems go away. The solution is to master the predictive understanding.

If you've never tried guinness and doughnuts for breakfast then you aren't a cheerful alcoholic fatso.

Didn't sleep very well at all as my bedroom is like an ice cube. I think I am going to have to set up a bed in the living room. Bloody victorian house it may be, but as I probably mentioned the previous owners installed African style louvred windows. Proving without a shadow of doubt that they were high all the time. Drudging through allotted tasks today, watching the clock for the first time in years. Have to keep playing five mins of Civ V just to stay awake.

Interesting point. Wasn't Mendel a monk?

I still think the government woul d have got away with any amount of bailout if they'd randomly selected one in ten bankers and crucified them. The best bit being I bet the bankers would go for it.

Why are people talking about North Korea like they are lead by rational people? Frankly I'm expecting the North Korean Old Guard to go "Well chaps, we're getting old. This is boring, we'll die soon. Wouldn't it suck to die without leaving a legacy? Those ****ing Americans and their South Korean dogs, let's give them something to remember." And boom, World War 3! Does it qualify as World War 3 if it's just the world against one country? Good point. Since The Great War is already taken, I suggest we call it The War What Sucked.

I will now attempt to commit seppkuk with a marble mouse.

Am I the only person who can see that the answer for those schools is to form pirate tribes and prey on the lucrative west coast shipping routes? A cross between Swallows and Amazons and Blackhawk Down. [note: I was going to do a quote mashup at this point, but I can't find my copy of either book.]

A junior associate of mine startled me yesterday (and earned himself a muffin) with the observation: "Wikipedia publish the names and addresses of Afghan informants... but don't publish their own." So much for a crusade against hypocrisy.

Oh lord, let's not start flinging liberalism about like a fur rug.

With respect to your normal good sense, you are talking arse, sir. I think it's a fairly sound statement to assert that most scientists, managers, engineers etc recognise that the things in our world (systems) interact almost constantly, and in vigorous and powerful ways (the system of systems). The notion that one can draw an arbitrary line around personal property by signing a piece of paper and the universe will respect the division is nothing short of mental. Which is a very disrespectful thing to say, but I can't say it with any less force without robbing the meaning. Assuming you agree with my assumptions, you can presumably see that government non-intervention in personal property is automatically defunct. To use Oblarg's example, if a fisherman catches all the fish tomorrow he may go out of business, but people who had no commercial say in the matter will starve. They cannot act commercially after the fact. Their only recourse is to intervene before the action is taken. they can either do this by means of vigilante action, or by enacting laws and a body to enforce them. Ditto the people who depend on farmers who pursue a quick profit at the expense of eco-diversity and next season trigger a plague of insects because all the birds who normally eat the insects had nowhere to nest.

You mean one of those snuggle blankets with arms, don't you?

:lol: Being raised in a public school my impression of state schools is that they do!

I am serious, and don't call me Shirley. Seriously bummed, but he did make it to 84. I'll be happy if I make it to my 70s! RiP. I only thought of this gag this afternoon! It's my favourite of his.

Hold on, Monte. I'm the freaky left wing nature hugger who posted the original point about how people do **** their environment. But I'm not talking about macro-climactic damage. I'm talkinb about deforestation, desertification etc. Local farmers claim they will starve unless they cut back forest and burn trees and eat monkeys and so forth. I don't think I need to evidence that. But if they go ahead and do it, then many more people and they themselves will starve completely. The only way is to have the govt or other regulatory body step in. the fact that it may not have been appropriate in the case of Klamath is irrelevant to my argument that it CAN be appropriate. Unless I've made some ghastly error. Your turn, GD.

You can't sop wankers from being wankers. You can try to ensure they don't end up in charge of anything. Like a school.

Jesus ****ing Christ. It's like you can gloss over that mass murder because the whistle blower whistled the democratic way (according to you). No mention that your precious government, who is supposed to be acting oh so democratic, hid the disaster for 18 months and that it took a WHISTLE BLOWER to expose it. And even then, only one guy was convicted.. for 300-500 dead people. He must have been very busy. Back then, the soldiers who did not want to participate in those US sanctioned murders of women and children were derided and called unpatriotic, cowards blah blah. In hindsight and thirty years after the fact, they are being given medals. In 20 years Assange will be getting medals, you will deride him now, turn your coat and call him a hero then. I don't think I f***ing well will. Quite apart from anything else it's trasnparently obvious that Assange is a power junkie and he'll inevitably end up in politics, and betray his own 'principles'. Leaving that side, there's a flaw in your outrage. Prosecution of the guilty was always going to be democratically enforced. Unless you advocate vigilante law enforcement the same way you advocate vigilante investigation.