David Hobby, dodging and weaving, metaphorically speaking: > jobs. Did they VOLUNTARILY choose those jobs? Technically, > yes. But they didn't have enough other choices for it to > really be a free choice. > > Metaphorically, I said it was gray. You simplified my > position to your choice of black or white in the way that > suited you. I don't like partisan arguments that reduce > complex issues to simplistic statements, since I find they > are not useful.
Saying simplistic is the last refuge of a liberal. And you didn't say any of that metaphorical or gray stuff. You made very strong, definite statements to the effect that workers didn't have free choice in taking jobs. I'm the one who brought up the metaphorical stuff, in saying you were literalizing a metaphorical use of coercion. And, if it's metaphorical coercion, then it doesn't merit having a literal law made about it. > What I had in mind was that the Government would modify > the market to include an appropriate price for maintaining an > unsafe workplace. Now, this is an interesting proposal. Let's hear the details. Will this work like pollution credits? A company can pay the government for not installing handrails or providing hard hats? Or maybe you'll just have a corporate income tax surcharge tied to the rate of worker injury claims--a kind of Alternative Mayhem Tax. > find a safer solution. Companies should not be allowed to > profit by acting in an unethical manner; failure to provide > (cost-effective) safety measures is unethical. Why is cost effectiveness part of the ethical equation? If creating a safe product/workplace causes me to price myself out of the market, am I then justified in making an unsafe product? After all, if I can't make a profit, then it's not cost effective. For shame, putting dollars over lives! > PLEASE. I know what I meant, I did study Economics. Gosh, how swell for you. My point remains: you say "market" when you mean "everything else but government." You don't want to rely on voluntary processes for solving this problem. Since no coercion is involved in creating this problem, I think it's obvious that voluntary processes should be relied on. If the problem isn't getting solved, then perhaps you care more about it than the workers whose safety you are trying to guarantee. I say let them make their own assessments of risk and reward. > No. The employer is not the one engaged in "coercion", the > system is. Great. Then regulate and fine the system, and leave the employer alone. > Some government interventions would be effective ways to > increase workplace safety. Some would not. There, I picked. Yes, so you believe that government can effectively increase workplace safety. Guess what? I think it can too. I just don't think it's government's place, and the overall cost of it is likely to outweigh the benefit. One of the "non-market" costs is people coming to rely more and more on the Mommy State to look out for them. As an example of what happens with this over-reliance, think of all of the weird weight loss, memory enhancement and virility nostrums being marketed on the radio and Internet these days. Most Americans have the mistaken impression that the FDA effectively regulates at least the safety, if not the efficacy of all this snake oil. How many times have you heard some boob say, "Well, if it was that dangerous, the government wouldn't let them sell it..." I think we'd all be much better off if everyone knew that anyone can sell anything, and you shouldn't trust strangers on the basis that the government is supposed to have vetted them for you. > As for "market malfunctions" I meant when the market does not > find the optimal solution for any of a variety of reasons. > One example is when the market ignores externalities, so that > it solves the wrong problem. First, you don't have knowledge of what is optimal. Second, the market doesn't ignore externalities. Externalities are created because of the framework of property rights that is generated by the legal system in which the market operates. If you want to solve the problem of externalities, you reform property rights. Every externality is an indication that property rights have not been appropriately defined. > I saw that you were starting, and warned you. I don't believe you. Neither would anyone else. You were obviously accusing me of already misrepresenting your position. > Vivisection > does not give accurate results. I'm going to go put that on a bumper sticker, right now. Mike Lee Islamic Moderate
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
