>>* I don't accept a priori that the life of a modern day capitalist on Wall
>>Street is happier, healthier, or of higher quality in toto than the life of
>>an aboriginal person isolated from modern technology (if there are still
>>any).
>
>I will say that such people existed in the Middle Ages, and over 50% of
>them died before turning 10.
>
>And I bet there are some African tribes which would meet the description.
There are plenty of Papua New Guinean tribes which have never seen white
people before, they certainly live quite happily (though they're lives
very quickly go downhill once they meet us.)
>>Government taxes on business?
>
>Drop the "on business" part. I don't allow it _at all_. It's an affront on
>the right of property.
Then where does government get its funding? And why should you have the
right to have a government if you don't pay for it? It's against the
right of property, you have something that you didn't earn. Sounds like
you want government to be altruistic.
>>Businesses employing people to influence legislation?
>
>It should not be relevant. There should be no reason. The extent which
>Government should legislate is the punishements for various crimes, how to
>keep order, provide for a national defence, and to establish courts.
Then who provides the roads you drive to work on? The fire brigade, the
ambulance. These are not lucrative markets that business would want to
take over.
>When I say provide for a defense, I mean minimally. Most (for example, the
>army) should be volunteers. And I mean a _defense_.
There is no such thing a military defense, it was lost in the Middle
Ages. Eg: When Japan came down and attacked Australia in WWII, we
didn't just sit around patrolling our coast and defending ourselves, we
went on the attack and fought back. By the time Japan surrendered
Australia had taken over Papua New Guniea and was heading right up into
Japan.
>>Businesses conspiring to divide territories and fix prices?
>>Businesses selling at a loss to drive competitors out of business?
>>Businesses threating suppliers who do business with competitors?
>
>Yes, yes, and yes.
>
>Stopping them is a violation of the right of liberty.
And letting them will result in MicroSofts in every industry, producing
low quality product for high prices but still selling because people are
too stupid to go against the standard. Society would go backwards.
>>Unchecked business consumption of irreplacable natural resources?
>
>So long as they own them (I would not have any tragedy's of the commons,
>because I would have _no_ commons). But I don't know which are
>irreplacable, and I don't think they would: If they consume them all, they
>would have no more.
>
>Stopping them violates the rights of property and liberty.
Letting them would doom us all. Business doesn't realise what
irreplacable means. They see a forest, chop it down and buy another
forest, then think we replaced the forest. Sooner or later they'll run
out of forests to buy and then they'll realise their mistake, but not
before.
>>Unchecked dumping of industrial wastes into water, pits, or the atmosphere?
>
>No. You can't pollute other's property [right of property]. Other than
>that, if you own it, yes [right of liberty].
But any pollution anywhere affects the rest of the global ecosystem. Eg:
The whole in the atmosphere is above Antartica. Go figure.
>>The rights of workers to organize and bargain as a unit?
>
>Yes [right of liberty].
But business would be able to sack any workers that do and hire non-union
labour. Currently government can make laws to protect workers in these
situations, preserving their right of liberty, but reducing businesses
right of liberty. SEE Australia's waterfront dispute between Patricks
shipping company and the Australian Maritime Union.
>>Businesses engaging in hazardous activities without regard to, or
>>responsibility for, the welfare of their employees?
>
>If the employees are told it is safe, then I'd call that fraud, punishable
>in court.
>
>And I'd expect the unions, and the competition for employees, to take care
>of offenders who do not commit fraud.
What competition for employees? Have you seen the unemployment rates
lately?
>>Businesses selling products they know to have safety or health risks?
>
>Not if they claim it's safe (see false advertising). But they would not:
>It'd hurt their reputation. And if you don't have a government saying "yes,
>it's safe", that's all consumers could go by. Reputation is _very_
>important. If someone comes up to you off the street and offers you medical
>services, you're not going to accept: He has no reputation, at least with
>you. The same would apply -- but more so -- if there were no government
>agency.
>
>And I do support trademarks (and their varients), so an organization could
>get together and certify perople. Except that this organization could not
>afford false-certification: It would harm their reputation, making their
>mark worthless.
Business's activities do not reflect on it's reputation, business's
advertising does. SEE MicroSoft.
>>Government bailouts of business?
>
>No.
SEE point about monopolies above.
>>Corporate buyouts (a la Cannon Industries) that bankrupt pension plans and
>>leave hundreds of former employees without the benefits they paid for?
>
>I'm not familiar with Cannon Industries, could you be more specific?
>
>But, I'm for the honoring of contracts [you can't have much trade without
>it].
What about bankruptcy? If I go bankrupt do I still have to pay you, if
so, how?
>My theory of how government arose is that someone did not approve of their
>neighbor And I don't mean bevcause he was a murderer.
Actually, they got sick of their lord stealing their crops so they
revulted and created democracy. Happened differently in different
countries though.
With all this in mind, I'd like to propose a third system for society.
The combination system. We take elements from capitalism, elements from
socialism and elements of altruism, and get the system that is currently
in use today (at least in Australia and from what I know of America there
too). We have a government that can regulate the people, and the people
who regulate the government. You have the right to property, liberty and
life, however you have the responsibility to respect other's rights (and
this is what is missing from Laissez Faire). With every right comes a
responsibility.
Paul Sutton Phone
3 Bream Street home phone +61 7 4777 8517
TAYLORS BEACH 4850 home computer fax +61 7 4477 9734
Queensland Australia (phone home # first to enable fax)
Head of Mathematics Department work phone +61 7 4776 2433
Ingham State High School work fax +61 7 4776 1182
PO Box 869
INGHAM Q 4850
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
