Resetting swallowed OT tag.

>>>> If taxpayers ponied up money, then the real the cost of
>>>> the
>>>> system must be the total cost , not the amount you
>>>> paid.

>>> There's a logical error there. ...

> No way.  Public subsidies are always theft and are always
> immoral.
> ( One of my few axioms ) I will never be convinced that
> theft can be
> justified by semantics. This is a moral distinction and if
> you do not
> dig my morals, at least say so and do not ascribe it to
> some logical
> error.   cc

Sure sounds like a troll to me.
I'll bite :-).

It's axiomatic that axioms, while having a role in
codifying empirical observation, also carry the attendant
risk of obscuring the full panoply of the rich tapestry of
reality. [How am I doing so far?][It's rubbish ...].

>> Perhaps
>> "If taxpayers ponied up money, then the real the cost of
>> the
>> system may lie somewhere between the real cost and the
>> amount you paid, but may be even less than that range"

Given that I gave an incomplete list of exemplars of why
this *might* be the case in this specific instance, but you
rejected them all on the basis that this was a moral
distinction then you have locked yourself within a
'religious' mindset which is logically unaddressable.

So, while further attempt at dialogue is therefore
necessarily certain to be vain I will yet pursue this aim a
little longer.
[How am i ...?] :-).

Which of the following points, synopsized from my prior
text,  allow of none other than moral distinctions?

- Value of sourcing energy locally.

- Opportunity cost of being able to delay installing new
large scale generation plant

- Reductions in distribution infrastructure. Also,

- Progress in developing more efficient alternative systems
result in efficiencies if large plant upgrades can be
delayed until higher efficiency / lower cost solutions are
available.

If the answer is, "All, by definition", then it's going to
be a very long row that we are hoeing, or a very short one.

If you define a deed as eg "theft" because you want to,
without even implicit reference to the underlying
principles, the result may be pleasing to you but is liable
to be not overly useful in discussion with others. eg if
someone walks into a 7/11, presents a gun, takes the the
till (cash register, ...?) contents and leaves, one would
normally label that as theft. It may be that in a very few
cases it represents part of a more complex process which we
are seeing only the sharp point of. If however, you (or I)
label a  process as theft which a significant percentage of
others do not label as theft then your insistence that your
label is correct may give you a warm fuzzy glow but is
liable to do little to assist in related dialog. If all
state payments are spending stolen gains, all tax is theft,
the government are usurpers and ursine arms are the order of
the day then there is little useful that may be said than
"hear hear" </Filter=C.Chang>.

So, by all means, insist that " ... Public subsidies are
always theft and are always immoral. ... ". If trolling and
flame bait and having fun with people is the aim then you
may be well served - or you may just get silly responses
like this one. But don't expect a useful discussion on
energy alternatives or the future of energy provisioning to
result.




        Russell


-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist