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