Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!flink
From: flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: The Principle of Non-interference
Message-ID: <1238@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 14-Aug-85 19:45:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1238
Posted: Wed Aug 14 19:45:15 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 18-Aug-85 22:14:19 EDT
References: <588@mmintl.UUCP>
Reply-To: flink@maryland.UUCP (Paul V. Torek)
Followup-To: net.politics.theory,net.philosophy
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 22
Summary: You said it, Frank!

In article <588@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes:
>Ultimately, it is impossible to "not interfere" with our neighbors.  It
>is in the nature of the universe that everything we do affects everyone
>else, if only slightly.  And many of the things we do, or want to do,
>have very significant effects -- if we eliminate all such, there is very
>little left which can be done.
>
>For example, every power plant, of whatever type, generates pollution.
>Pollution undeniably interferes with others.  Should we then prohibit
>all power plants?  Obviously not [...]

You hit the nail right on the head, Frank!  There is no such thing as a
libertarian-compatible solution to pollution short of the ridiculous
idea of banning all pollution -- despite flimsy libertarian arguments to
the contrary.

That is one of the prime reasons I have been such a persistent anti-
libertarian, though I haven't discussed the issue since the Tom Craver era.
Please post your original article to net.politics.theory, where it definitely
also belongs.  

--Paul V Torek, Iconbuster-In-Chief