Fines Are Forms Of Tyranny And Acts Of Deception

“I hope we never have to go there, we’re certainly not planning on doing that in the very near future because we are seeing some good results, but ultimately we may have to go there for certain residents who just don’t care,” McKay said.

My daughter is writing a 'persuasive argument' for English class. The question is 'Should the government fine people for not recycling'?

To me, the first instinct you should have is 'hell no' and when you consider it further, it should be 'absolutely hell no'.

Fines are acts of aggression backed up by government force. That's what they are at their root.

In the specific case of recycling, it's especially galling. In places like Toronto and California (surprise) city workers rummage through bins on private property.

It's all for the benefit of the environment, see? You do care about the environment right? So why not let us look? It'll only take a minute. It's a nice lawn you have there...violation of privacy must be tolerated.

You shouldn't have to compel anyone to do anything. If you have to force people against their will, then it brings forth the question as to how good the idea is in the first place.

If they choose to not do so, that's their choice. THIS is what it means to live in a free society.

If you must go there, come up with some sort of incentive or rewards programs. Humans respond to incentives, coercion not so much. In fact, the fact you have to rely on force to push a program should give pause. If you want to change habits, punishment is simply not effective.

Which brings me to the above quote. It takes a special kind of mindset to say what people like Jim McKay to believe their aggression to be reasoned. Nothing is more corrosive to a community - think Bastiat's dictum of the unseen - than badgering them into submission over something they may voluntarily object to.

McKay will force you to betray your principles because he's a sanctimonious bully who has deluded himself into thinking he's in some kind of moral right.

Read the article carefully. He wants fine people who don't go along with his 'natural monopoly'.

Never mind that the science of recycling is not exactly proven to be a benefit to society. Unless inspectors will be using electric cars, the pollution from ICE alone negates the whole point of the exercise it's for the environment. Sort of like how environmental ministers jet set across the globe on the taxpayer dime in airplanes fighting for 'green' projects.

 From John Tierney in the NYT in 1996:

"Environmentalists don't necessarily oppose free-market reforms for garbage -- they've supported some pay-as-you-throw systems -- but they spend much of their energy crusading for government recycling programs and regulations. They have instinctively chosen Hardin's second solution. This is partly because of their ideology -- many environmentalists trust government regulations more than market forces -- but there's also another reason. The leaders of the recycling movement derive psychic and financial rewards from recycling. Environmental groups raise money and attract new members through their campaigns to outlaw "waste" and prevent landfills from opening. They get financing from public and private sources (including the recycling industry) to research and promote recycling. By turning garbage into a political issue, environmentalists have created jobs for themselves as lawyers, lobbyists, researchers, educators and moral guardians. Environmentalists may genuinely believe they're helping the earth, but they have been hurting the common good while profiting personally, just like the village's herdsmen. This is the real Tragedy of the Dump: the waste of public funds on recycling programs, the needless public alarm about landfills."

Cui bono? indeed. And this is what makes me suspicious of people like McKay. I reject his plea; especially if it seeks to make me some kind of scofflaw despite paying TAXES. In any event, waste management tends to be, shall we say, a racket filled with cronyism - and they want you to play the game against your will. 

What forcing people into these schemes do is actually forces them into a potential time and money wasting exercise. Or as a friend put it:

"I’d take the economics utility argument. If the recycled substance is not even profitable for the private sector to recycle, and the hazard of not recycling the substance is not demonstrable, then you are left with a situation where the government is forcing people to recycle at an economic loss that costs the taxpayer excess money, with potential for additional consequence of introducing unnecessary bureaucratic and administrative costs that are intractable to recall. Government mandated unprofitable recycling for inert materials only achieves the goal of lining the pockets of government crony enterprises and satisfying the moral righteousness of do-gooders and feels."

What's the trade-off? If you look at the over-ambitious climate change proposals, most come at the expense of two things: Growth and personal liberties. 

Don't be swayed with vague 'we have to start somewhere' and 'it's for the common good' arguments. Those are just emotional ploys and pleas to get you to submit. They do this by playing on your guilt. Just like how some religions do. Funny, eh? The hubris of politicians and activists is staggering when you think of it. They want you to believe you're the problem, and because it's human-driven this suggests we can 'fix' it. And by fixing they get to dole out the contracts and profit - off your backs.

If they rely on more sober, reliable science, they know they can't sucker you because it wouldn't support their claims. 

In any event, we can go on and on about why this is a terrible idea. 

The further erosion of civil liberties first among them.

And oh, to McKay I have a more direct thought: Fuck off, slaver.


I would also invite people to stop listening to people on TV. 

Because you get a lot of impostors feeding you unhealthy pseudo-intellecual gunk:

Evidence collected over many years, obtained from many locations, indicates that the power of Prayer is insufficient to stop bullets from killing school children.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.