At 2:44 PM +1000 on 7/15/99, Paul Sutton wrote:
>>>* 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?
Usage fees. If you loose a lawsuit, you pay the court costs, for example.
>
>>>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.
Roads in the US were done by private enterprise before government took
over. And there still are some -- the Dullas Greenway, for example, which
was recently constructed and is near me. And people would pay to have their
house protected by a fire company and an ambulance company (wouldn't you?)
>
>>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.
Yes, there is. Consider Switzerland. Does anyone _dare_ attack them? They
know their armies would be defeated, because all capable adult males there
are armed.
A free country has never had a shortage of volunteers to defend it.
And if and only if actually attacked, it is still defensive to destroy your
opponents ability to attack you. And you could get volunteers for that as
well.
>
>>>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.
No it won't. Although it may take time, someone will put out something so
much better that people will not be able to ignore it. If computer company
A can beat MS on a price basis and a feature basis, MicroSoft will either
have to start cometing or loose ground.
Consider that the MicroSoft situation once existed in the semiconductor
market. But then came competition. And Intel, once holding a 90+% market
share, is loosing ground rapidly.
Who will MicroSoft lose too? Judging by current trends, Apple, RedHat,
Debian, and Slackware.
>
>>>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.
Ummm... is that why more trees are planted than cut donw in the United
States? Is that why there is more forest area than at the beginning of the
century here?
They can't just 'buy more'. Who are they going to buy it from? As a
resource dwindles, prices rise. And then they'll look to more
cost-effective alternatives -- like replanting. and they already have.
>
>>>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.
If a business excessivly polutes the air, then, by gollie, some of that
comes onto my property. At which point, they've infringed on my rights.
>
>>>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.
No. You have the right to liberty over your proerty, not over other's
property. I can't do what I please with _your_ computer because it's
_yours_. But I can with mine, because it's mine.
When government protects union workers, it is actualy only infringing on
business's rights. YOu don't have the right to a job. You have the right to
seek a job. You don't have the right to anyone else's property. You have
the right to your own property.
>
>>>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?
Yes. 2% or so. At least in more capitalistic nations. Of course, in the
more socialistic Europe, government interference has created ones in excess
of 10%. I'm not sure about what they are in .au.
>
>>>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.
Ha. But if MS's products were to kill or harm people, you don't think that
would harm their reputation? And would you, or anyone you know, eat at a
restraunt with a bad reputation? Where you saw in the news last week
someone became ill from the food? Remember what a minor scare here did to
the beef industry? And they even had the gov. backing them.
People assume products are safe because there is an FDA, a CPSC, etc.
The truth is, other than the bugs, bad planning, bloat, and ill interface
design, MicroSoft makes quality products <g>. And if people want that...
well, they can have it.
>
>>>Government bailouts of business?
>>
>>No.
>
>SEE point about monopolies above.
Huh?
>
>>>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?
Well, if you can't, you can't. I can't change that. But you must liquedate
everything possible to pay as much as possible.
However, it's far better to have one company go out of business than an
entire economy, as happens when government intervention blows up (see the
great depression)
>
>
>>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.
I'm talking about the first governments (i.e., the beginnings of
civilization). But it could be they got tired of criminals to. But I doubt
that: Criminals are easy to take care of -- everyone agrees to punish rid
of them, and you can justify it easily. But I would have a much harder time
(indeed, I can not do it) justifying some of the laws on the books of the
state of Virginia having to do with sex between consenting adults, for
example (and I'm not even talking about prostitution, here). But the
Puritans don't like it.
>
>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).
The "responsibility" to respect other's rights is not missing from
laissez-faire. You can not have laissez-faire capitalism unless you have a
society that respects those rights.
But you can not have capitalism with socialism. Capitalism is, imo, good.
Socialism is bad. A compromise between good and evil... guess who wins.
Eventually, such a compromise WILL turn to socialism, then eventually
communism.
You can not compromise a system based on rights (capitalism) and a system
based on lack of rights (socialism). Such is logically absurd and thus
unstable. There is a reason there is 10% unemployment in Europe. And it's
not capitalism causing it. It's socialism.
>With every right comes a
>responsibility.
I agree only to the extent that you must respect that others have that
right, too.
