POLITICS Open source information: new proposal

[Guest guest]

POLITICS>> RE: Open source

POLITICS>> information: new proposal

POLITICS>>

POLITICS>>

POLITICS>>

POLITICS>> >>WASHINGTON - Under a new proposal, the White House

POLITICS>> would decide

POLITICS>> >>what and when the public would be told about an

POLITICS>> outbreak of mad

POLITICS>> >>cow disease, an anthrax release, a nuclear plant

POLITICS>> accident or any

POLITICS>> >>other crisis.

POLITICS>> >

POLITICS>> >

POLITICS>> >another good argument for libertarianism ;-)

POLITICS>>

POLITICS>> Suze:

POLITICS>>

POLITICS>> Somehow I expected that :-p

but not from *me*, i'd wager :-D

But note this is

POLITICS>> from the people who espouse " small government " .

POLITICS>> Which is one of the reasons I distrust the " small government "

POLITICS>> camp at this point --- this " small government " is

POLITICS>> getting weirder and weirder.

POLITICS>>

POLITICS>> -- Heidi

???? i didn't understand it to mean that anyone was espousing *smaller*

gov't but rather more *centralized* gov't. the article said basically that

the white house and congress (not exactly small gov't activists) are pushing

for the centralization of powers - for the OMB to take over what various

other agenices have been doing in regards to disseminating information.

it really is a good argument for both smaller AND non-centralized gov't - if

this one agency - the OMB - is given such immense and broad powers, that

will make it MUCH easier for industry to lobby or corrupt them (not that

they're not succeeding doing so in the current system). but right now,

anyone who wants to influence the info put out to the public on various

health issues, emergency management etc, has to deal with a variety of

agencies. (and i'm not arguing that this is good either.) if this proposal

goes through, there will be one centralized agency to target - maybe only

one or two people for industry to influence, rather than dozens dispersed

among various agencies.

whether it's one central agency, or divided among 10 different agencies - we

are still getting information vital to our well being that is filtered and

carefully selected (and perhaps altered) by gov't officials, probably many

of whom took positions in those agencies directly out of the industries they

are regulating or reporting on, such as the FDA. either way, it's big gov't

with the powers more or less dispersed, and that article brings it to light.

therefore, i don't understand your statement " But note this is from the

people who espouse " small government " .

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/21/04 1:47:34 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> My comment was mainly because the Bush supporters I know

> somehow believe he is for smaller, meaning less-intrusive,

> government.

Heidi,

Bush would be suffering major attack from conservatives had 9/11 not

happened, since he isn't one, by any stretch of the imagination. But far more

importantly, he IS suffering attack left and right, daily, from Libertarians.

Suze said it was an argument supporting a " libertarian " society, so your

comment is essentially a non-sequitor, since no Bush-supporter is a Libertarian

and no Libertarian is a Bush-supporter, and since Bush advocates and pratices

increasing the size of government, not decreasing it.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>

>???? i didn't understand it to mean that anyone was espousing *smaller*

>gov't but rather more *centralized* gov't. the article said basically that

>the white house and congress (not exactly small gov't activists) are pushing

>for the centralization of powers - for the OMB to take over what various

>other agenices have been doing in regards to disseminating information.

My comment was mainly because the Bush supporters I know

somehow believe he is for smaller, meaning less-intrusive,

government. They also believe that Democrats are for very intrusive,

big, expensive government. I don't think either generalization holds

true all the time, but the current " big brotherish " attitude of the GOP

is SOOOO not in line with what the " small gov't " claim.

>it really is a good argument for both smaller AND non-centralized gov't - if

>this one agency - the OMB - is given such immense and broad powers, that

>will make it MUCH easier for industry to lobby or corrupt them (not that

>they're not succeeding doing so in the current system). but right now,

Good point. The lobbyists will save lots of money too! Some industry

groups have been complaining that they have to spend way too much

money lobbying .... which of course drives up the cost of goods.

>whether it's one central agency, or divided among 10 different agencies - we

>are still getting information vital to our well being that is filtered and

>carefully selected (and perhaps altered) by gov't officials, probably many

>of whom took positions in those agencies directly out of the industries they

>are regulating or reporting on, such as the FDA. either way, it's big gov't

>with the powers more or less dispersed, and that article brings it to light.

That is another good point. In terms of BSE though, there is a push

to renovate the laws so that recall of meat can be done (as it is

for other products) if the meat is found to be contaminated. And

it has brought to light that " FDA inspected " doesn't mean much

at this point. Actually until this happened (and the article) I hadn't

thought much about how we FIND OUT about this sort of thing ...

well, a lot of it comes out because newpapers like sensational

stories and some whistleblower " tells all " but I guess this one

was released by the FDA?

As for " small government " vs. " centralized government " that gets

into a whole political theory too, I guess. The " small gov't "

people (not to be confused with Libertarians on this list) have

been saying more power should go to the states, that we should

have more local control. Which to me implies more openness

and sharing of information, because to make local decisions

requires information. And, as I brought up in the Internet

analogy, de-centralized control often makes for a more robust

system (although there is always a tradeoff, and the amount

of centralized vs. de-centralized control that is ideal is always

the sticky part).

So technically a gov't could be " smaller " if it is more " centralized " ,

but such a gov't will also feel more " intrusive " because it

will make decisions that don't fit at a local level. When people

say " smaller " they usually mean " cheaper, less intrusive " .

But the smallest gov't would be one person making all the

decisions, a king, if you will.

OK, now I'm all confusied.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>

> You must be in a different crowd! The conservatives around here love

> the guy, and the expanded gov't too, and especially the bigger role

> for the church in state affairs. And they still rail against the

> " Big Gov't " liberals. The liberals I know mostly advocate a smaller

> role for the government (though they do support some social programs

> and environmental regulations and research) and a balanced budget.

> Other than you folks, I have not met anyone who admitted to being

Libertarian,

> except Penn and Teller (whose philosophies in most things I like).

>

> -- Heidi

The libertarian principle is simple, and like all good things in life

can be summed up in a single simple sentence – no person, or group,

has the right to INITIATE violence (or use the threat of it) against

another person or group. Just about everyone I ever have asked

agrees with this. However people don't follow it for two reason

A) He/She is a person or are in a group that benefits from violence

He/She has been convinced by the people in group A that it would

never work, usually by the use of fear, the most effective ways to

manipulate people.

Of course after a thorough open minded look over many years at all

the fear mongering, the arguments fall apart, but very few people are

exposed to these arguments because there is so much at stake. It is

such a powerful principle that if followed it would in the historical

blink of an eye destroy all the powerful abusive institutions of the

world that cause excessive violence and suffering.

I usually find it more productive to argue principles rather than

specific " issues " .

-Joe

[Guest guest]

>Of course after a thorough open minded look over many years at all

>the fear mongering, the arguments fall apart, but very few people are

>exposed to these arguments because there is so much at stake. It is

>such a powerful principle that if followed it would in the historical

>blink of an eye destroy all the powerful abusive institutions of the

>world that cause excessive violence and suffering.

>

>I usually find it more productive to argue principles rather than

>specific " issues " .

>

>-Joe

From that discription,

I'd also have to wonder about the implementation

of it ... if you decided to have a libertarian

society with no government, how would anyone

ENFORCE libertarianism? I suppose would say,

well, you have to have police to make sure

no one uses violence. Well, then suppose

the police chief is corrupt (like that never

happens!) and decides to start using violence.

Who will then bring the police into line? The

army? But who pays for the army? What if the army

decides to take over? Who brings them into line?

I think the main reason such ideas aren't followed

though is that the forces that have been at

work for the last few thousand years are

making bigger and bigger " groups " of people,

not smaller more individualistic ones. It's not

just fear, it has to do with efficiency and

desire for monopoly, power, and security. Look

at the computer industry ... Microsoft took it

over without much help from anyone.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Heidi,

Penn grew up in Greenfield, MA nearby. Their political attitude over the

last 10 years especially is, we'll take whatever you want to put here as

long as its money for us. Unfortunately, they're the county seat. Big box

stores on environmentally sensitive, farm or historic land don't go easy for

them with all the preservationists in the county.

> > Other than you folks, I have not met anyone who admitted to being

> Libertarian,

> > except Penn and Teller (whose philosophies in most things I like).

Wanita

[Guest guest]

>Heidi,

>

>Penn grew up in Greenfield, MA nearby. Their political attitude over the

>last 10 years especially is, we'll take whatever you want to put here as

>long as its money for us. Unfortunately, they're the county seat. Big box

>stores on environmentally sensitive, farm or historic land don't go easy for

>them with all the preservationists in the county.

>

>Wanita

That is too bad. Actually Penn and Teller are kind of activists

in their own way ... I think they are in Las Vegas now. Las

Vegas is an interesting case ... it is VERY regulated, there

are spy cams all over the place, but somehow it FEELS

" free " . Not that it is terribly environmentally sensitive.

Same kind of thing is happening here ... small towns want

money so they let them build anything. Then they lose

the charm of the small town.

-- Heidi