3 ms·

> Did this story feature a theft? It featured govt incompetence at a grand scale. No, not selling Yellowstone (or buying Yellowstone), but going bankrupt. On

by anamax 15y ago

> Did this story feature a theft? It featured govt incompetence at a grand scale. No, not selling Yellowstone (or buying Yellowstone), but going bankrupt. On the assumption that you think that Exxon did something wrong in your scenario, there are two cases - Exxon paid a "fair price" or it didn't. In the "fair price" scenario, the problem is not Exxon. In fact, they're the good guys - presumably the US govt is better off making the sale, and no, Exxon has no obligation to subsidize govt incompetence. In the "unfair price" scenario, Exxon can't buy a govt that isn't for sale.

devvieish 15y ago
> presumably the US govt is better off making the sale This is a remarkably large assumption. The actually quite small group of people who together have the authority to make the sale are, presumably, better off making it (or they wouldn't). But there's no reason to think that they are even trying to maximize the benefit of "the US govt" as an institution, over time. > In the "unfair price" scenario, Exxon can't buy a govt that isn't for sale. So now you've defended Exxon from being the charge of thievery. Great, the government officials who made the sale were the "real" thieves, and Exxon was "only" their associate in crime.
- anamax 15y ago
  > > presumably the US govt is better off making the sale >This is a remarkably large assumption. Not at all. If follows from the prerequisites for that case. If you don't agree with those prerequisites, you choose the other case. > > In the "unfair price" scenario, Exxon can't buy a govt that isn't for sale. > So now you've defended Exxon from being the charge of thievery. Since they're not guilty of thievery (in this case), why are you offended by them being defended from the charge? Would you have the same reaction if it was "Happy Puppy Company"? > Great, the government officials who made the sale were the "real" thieves, Yes (and in more ways that one). > and Exxon was "only" their associate in crime. Not at all. We're assuming that govt officials have the relevant authority. If they exercise it poorly .... I'll assume that you think that govt "lets" Exxon do bad things. Let me point out that the fault for that is entirely govt. To be fair, a govt that does certain things is highly likely to do bad things as well. If doing those bad things bothers you, perhaps you might want to stop govt from doing the precursors. Not
  - wnight 15y ago
    >> > presumably the US govt is better off making the sale >>This is a remarkably large assumption. >Not at all. If follows from the prerequisites for that case. If you don't agree with those prerequisites, you choose the other case. The good of the people, the government, and the politicians/cronies brokering the deal are all unrelated. Almost always the insiders profit, often the government (this party, not that - or this system, not that) does, but only rarely does this percolate down to the people. >> So now you've defended Exxon from being the charge of thievery. > Since they're not guilty of thievery (in this case), why are you offended by them being defended from the charge? They are guilty though. If I buy a TV from someone's home-care nurse, knowing the nurse doesn't have their patient's consent to sell it, I'd be a thief. Legally and more importantly, ethically. If (the hypothetical) Exxon knew this $300M value was far below an honest evaluation or that the sale was achieved by kickbacks they'd know the public didn't actually consent, and thus they couldn't legitimately take ownership. But hypothetically they did, and it's theft. > We're assuming that govt officials have the relevant authority. If they exercise it poorly .... What a dumb idea that is. What precedent have you ever seen for that? Seriously, a vote isn't a sign-off on anything a government does, it's a last-ditch effort to keep things from going really badly. Nobody I know has ever given consent to be governed, including abdicating their right to chose a better political system first. I know people who have changed their citizenship and who theoretically have agreed to the rules of their new country, but only because there were no other ways to have some say in the government that was already taxing them and claiming to act in their name. Assuming anything, let alone something as monumental as a mandate to rule, from such minor and infrequent actions, is ridiculous. Remember, if you buy a stolen TV it's not yours, and if you knew or should have known that it's stolen, you're a thief too. It's not just common sense, it's the law.
    - anamax 15y ago
      > They are guilty though. If I buy a TV from someone's home-care nurse, knowing the nurse doesn't have their patient's consent to sell it, I'd be a thief. Legally and more importantly, ethically. While true, that's not the case here. >> We're assuming that govt officials have the relevant authority. If they exercise it poorly .... >What a dumb idea that is. What precedent have you ever seen for that? It's almost always the case, so assuming otherwise is silly. You're confusing "it would be bad for govt do to {something}" with "govt has no authority to do {something}". If you don't want govt to do {bad thing}, you shouldn't give it the power to do {bad thing}, even if that authority is necessary to do {good thing}. > Seriously, a vote isn't a sign-off on anything a government does, it's a last-ditch effort to keep things from going really badly. Between that and not changing govt, you have consented. You may not like what you've consented to, but until you effect change, it's yours.

by anamax 15y ago

devvieish 15y ago

> presumably the US govt is better off making the sale This is a remarkably large assumption. The actually quite small group of people who together have the authority to make the sale are, presumably, better off making it (or they wouldn't). But there's no reason to think that they are even trying to maximize the benefit of "the US govt" as an institution, over time. > In the "unfair price" scenario, Exxon can't buy a govt that isn't for sale. So now you've defended Exxon from being the charge of thievery. Great, the government officials who made the sale were the "real" thieves, and Exxon was "only" their associate in crime.

anamax 15y ago
> > presumably the US govt is better off making the sale >This is a remarkably large assumption. Not at all. If follows from the prerequisites for that case. If you don't agree with those prerequisites, you choose the other case. > > In the "unfair price" scenario, Exxon can't buy a govt that isn't for sale. > So now you've defended Exxon from being the charge of thievery. Since they're not guilty of thievery (in this case), why are you offended by them being defended from the charge? Would you have the same reaction if it was "Happy Puppy Company"? > Great, the government officials who made the sale were the "real" thieves, Yes (and in more ways that one). > and Exxon was "only" their associate in crime. Not at all. We're assuming that govt officials have the relevant authority. If they exercise it poorly .... I'll assume that you think that govt "lets" Exxon do bad things. Let me point out that the fault for that is entirely govt. To be fair, a govt that does certain things is highly likely to do bad things as well. If doing those bad things bothers you, perhaps you might want to stop govt from doing the precursors. Not
- wnight 15y ago
  >> > presumably the US govt is better off making the sale >>This is a remarkably large assumption. >Not at all. If follows from the prerequisites for that case. If you don't agree with those prerequisites, you choose the other case. The good of the people, the government, and the politicians/cronies brokering the deal are all unrelated. Almost always the insiders profit, often the government (this party, not that - or this system, not that) does, but only rarely does this percolate down to the people. >> So now you've defended Exxon from being the charge of thievery. > Since they're not guilty of thievery (in this case), why are you offended by them being defended from the charge? They are guilty though. If I buy a TV from someone's home-care nurse, knowing the nurse doesn't have their patient's consent to sell it, I'd be a thief. Legally and more importantly, ethically. If (the hypothetical) Exxon knew this $300M value was far below an honest evaluation or that the sale was achieved by kickbacks they'd know the public didn't actually consent, and thus they couldn't legitimately take ownership. But hypothetically they did, and it's theft. > We're assuming that govt officials have the relevant authority. If they exercise it poorly .... What a dumb idea that is. What precedent have you ever seen for that? Seriously, a vote isn't a sign-off on anything a government does, it's a last-ditch effort to keep things from going really badly. Nobody I know has ever given consent to be governed, including abdicating their right to chose a better political system first. I know people who have changed their citizenship and who theoretically have agreed to the rules of their new country, but only because there were no other ways to have some say in the government that was already taxing them and claiming to act in their name. Assuming anything, let alone something as monumental as a mandate to rule, from such minor and infrequent actions, is ridiculous. Remember, if you buy a stolen TV it's not yours, and if you knew or should have known that it's stolen, you're a thief too. It's not just common sense, it's the law.
  - anamax 15y ago
    > They are guilty though. If I buy a TV from someone's home-care nurse, knowing the nurse doesn't have their patient's consent to sell it, I'd be a thief. Legally and more importantly, ethically. While true, that's not the case here. >> We're assuming that govt officials have the relevant authority. If they exercise it poorly .... >What a dumb idea that is. What precedent have you ever seen for that? It's almost always the case, so assuming otherwise is silly. You're confusing "it would be bad for govt do to {something}" with "govt has no authority to do {something}". If you don't want govt to do {bad thing}, you shouldn't give it the power to do {bad thing}, even if that authority is necessary to do {good thing}. > Seriously, a vote isn't a sign-off on anything a government does, it's a last-ditch effort to keep things from going really badly. Between that and not changing govt, you have consented. You may not like what you've consented to, but until you effect change, it's yours.