[eszed]

A government

> standing in for many individuals who share a common injury.

Sounds like a synonym for "public interest" to me! Is that a semantic difference, or do you think there's something substantive to it?

I'd like to know how you'd handle the case of a new industrial plant (let's even say it's a brand new technology) that will exhaust lead into the atmosphere. Does the government have to wait until there's demonstrable harm, and then lodge a suit in court? Isn't it... cleaner (for want of a better word, and no pun intended) to have a law in place that says "No Lead-spewing (as defined by [reasonable technical standard]) Allowed", and prevent it being built altogether? From another angle, under which paradigm would hypothetical investors prefer to operate?

In fact, and this is true, industry often requests regulations be put in place, because they'd like to be certain that their investments won't be subjected to the uncertainty of (private or public) litigation. Yes, this can be malign (in the cases of corruption, or regulatory capture, or incumbents freezing out smaller competitors), but at its most basic the request can be seen as benign: "we'd like to comply with community standards; please write down what they are, and we'll follow them" - no violence required or implied. It's also, and to my way of thinking more importantly, a way to break out of prisoner's dilemma equilibria, where all players can agree the sector as a whole will be better off without defectors, but appeal to an outside, neutral party to keep themselves honest.

I'm also curious about what seems to be your premise that The Courts are separate from The State. That's not how I think of them at all! I mean, aren't they, kind of by definition? After all, if one ignores a judgement - even civil - isn't the ruling ultimately enforced by, well, Force?

[piekvorst]

> Is that a semantic difference, or do you think there’s something substantive to it?

"Public interest" today implies a conflict with private interests: a new sports arena, "affordable" housing, protecting domestic jobs. So no, government-as-plaintiff doesn't count.

Personally, I'd define the public interest as interests common to all men: freedom, not sacrifices of some to others. But that's not the modern meaning of it.

> Does the government have to wait until there’s demonstrable harm

Anticipating harm is proper when the decision is irreversible. Example: nobody has a right to physically block a public entrance. That's a right violation you can prohibit in advance. Same with pollution: objective laws ("you may not emit substance X beyond concentration Y") set a clear boundary without dictatign production methods.

But there's no harm to anticipate in, say, Lightning vs. USB-C.

> your premise that The Courts are separate from The State

If you got it from the way I contrasted courts with regulatory agencies, I actually contrasted the way the state can wield force: retaliatory (proper) vs initiatory (improper). Other than that, the courts and state aren't separated.

[eszed]

Yeah, I think our difference on "public interest" is semantic. I wouldn't even quibble with your "interests common to all" definition, so the next step would be to draw lines about what, in practice, that means. Frankly, I think we'd agree about a lot of it: sports arenas and (at least in the abstract) "protecting jobs" don't count for me, either!

You are correct about where I (over) interpreted your view of the court system. Apologies for that, and thanks for the clarification. However, I still don't think I understand the distinction you draw between "retaliatory (proper) vs initiatory (improper)". Would you then say that there shouldn't be a permitting / approval system (because that's anticipatory), so enforcement should be limited to taking pollution readings and acting (in retaliation, natch) after a facility is built? Even if you can sustain that position in principle, I think it would be impractical, across a number of dimensions, in reality. But, it's possible that I misunderstood that point, so please explain further.

I also note a segment from one of your earlier comments, where you advocated for "total separation of state and economics". In my view this is utterly impossible. Regulating pollutants is an intervention that (properly, we agree!) works to the economic disadvantage of pollutors. Even more fundamentally, a (functional, large scale) market economy depends entirely on the state's ability to adjudicate and enforce (at least) contractual terms. I don't think your view can be sustained.

[ahf8Aithaex7Nai]

Here is “that guy.” You won't convince them with practical examples, because this is a matter of principle. Freedom and independence from the state are more important to these people than a few people suffering from lead poisoning. From their perspective, living a free life and then dying of lead poisoning is still better than being subjugated by the Leviathan.

> your second paragraph is at odds with your third

Well, well. That didn’t take long.

The teenager was a carefully chosen comparison. The state’s authority over the citizen is similar to a parent’s authority over their child. This is quite humiliating and emasculating. And I agree with libertarians on one point: if the state is against you, you don’t stand a chance. A healthy approach to this has two components. (1) You make sure that the authority is benevolent or at least allows enough leeway for a good life. (2) You create enclaves of freedom. The teenager hides his weed and smokes it secretly, or smokes his cigarettes on the way to school. The citizen leaves some income untaxed and runs a red light now and then. What does the teenager who categorically rejects parental authority do? Run away and become homeless? The difference between them and an adult is that the latter should have enough sense to realize that the romantic notion of a life free from the burden of authority ultimately leads to sadness, coldness, loneliness, and misery—or, if it succeeds at all, merely re-establishes structures in which forms of authority are entrenched. Libertarians feel most oppressed by the state every time they have to wait at a red light or obey a speed limit. They fail to see that, in doing so, they are submitting to a principle of order that is necessary for road traffic to function at all.

> Is that a semantic difference, or do you think there's something substantive to it?

That is a very important point! Philosophers distinguish between the particular and the universal. Libertarians recognize only the particular and reject any notion of the universal, because it negates all particularities. For them, a group is always just an accumulation of individuals. A genuine community—which consists precisely in the participating individuals restricting themselves to some extent for the sake of the community—is inconceivable to them as something positive. Hence the infamous Thatcher quote: “... and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families ...” That is an ideological divide that cannot be bridged through discussion. I’ve gone over this enough times already.

[eszed]

I've argued (mostly offline, for my sins) with far more libertarian-ish people than I care to have, and I think piekvorst has a) been a more congenial conversational partner than you gave him credit, and b) approached the subject from a slightly different angle than I'd expected, so I'm still enjoying the interchange. In particular (read our latest replies to each other, if you care), he's in favor of regulating lead pollution, so he's miles ahead of certain of my relatives in both principles and practicalities!

But... Yeah. I'm in much more agreement with your point of view, and he's still Wrong On The Internet, so here we are. :-)

[piekvorst]

> You won't convince them with practical examples, because this is a matter of principle. . . . Libertarians recognize only the particular and reject any notion of the universal, because it negates all particularities.

You describe people who advocate freedom as both mystics indifferent to reality and pragmatists without principle. Which is it?

[ahf8Aithaex7Nai]

Where do I claim that libertarians are pragmatists? They do have principles—just the wrong ones. Incidentally, I don’t think they’re really concerned with freedom, at least not in the Kantian sense.

[piekvorst]

I don’t think that either libertarians or Kant are genuinely concerned with freedom. My position is closest to classical liberalism, with different philosophical foundations.