Harry Pollard wrote: > > > We happened to be talking about "privilege", which is my name for an > > > unjust law - one which benefits one at the expense of another. > > > >You are against "private laws", but you are in favor of privatization laws. > >Isn't the latter *also* "an unjust law - one which benefits one at the > >expense of another" ? Note that the laws are made by lawyers (jurists), > >which happen to be the *most privileged* profession on this planet > >(dominating all 3 estates of the state and much of private corporations). > > Chris, thou dost assume too much. I am certainly not in favor of > privatization and I've said so many times on this list.
Poor Harry still doesn't know what he wants. He clearly argued in favor of WTO and GATS, which are entirely about privatization. I'm getting tired of playing "hide and seek" with Harry's advocacy goals -- perhaps he should make up his mind for once, getting rid of the contradictions, and then inform the list about it. > The laws are made by the government - those elected representatives that > you want to control practically everything - though many of them are indeed > lawyers. The laws are increasingly made by corporate lobbyists and supranational bodies (like WTO), both without democratic accountability. In other words, made by ever "fatter cats". > > > Welfare for the rich - that is privilege certainly costs us a lot more > > than welfare for the poor. But, my point was that all privilege should be > > ended. > > > >Wouldn't it make sense to start with the *largest* privileges ? > > Start anywhere you wish. Let's wipe out the entire tariff and import quota > system tomorrow. You keep barking at the wrong tree. Chris
