Subject:
|
Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 10 May 2001 18:05:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
957 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> Dave Schuler wrote:
> >
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> >
> > > > Who would fund such a [watchdog] organization,
> > >
> > > Whoever wished to..?
> >
> > So Joe Smith Toxic Waste Dumping, Inc. can fund a watchdog organization to
> > demonstrate that it's safe to dump industrial sludge into the local
> > reservoir. Is that what you're envisioning?
>
> I don't think such a company would really last terribly long. If their
> actions really had a wide impact, they would find quite an array of
> folks against them. And not all of the money to hire the lawyers to sue
> them out of existence will come from individuals. Those corporations who
> realize they do a lot better when they have healty populations as
> workers and customers will toss plenty of weight into the fray against
> the poluter.
Okay, let's say that Joe Smith TWD Inc is sued into bankrupcy and their
assets sold. In all likelihood the cost to repair the damage to the
environment will greatly exceed the company's worth, so even full
liquidation of assets won't fund the cleanup. Further, they can say all
along "Well, we were just going by the available data--how were we to know?"
Moreover, if Joe Smith TWD Inc is actually several small companies, each
of which is separately incorporated (I know that's not how I set it up in my
first post, but we're still being hypothetical), no one corporation can be
sued for the of the damages unless it was responsible for the damage, so
there's even less chance to recoup costs. In the meantime, the other
branches of the Joe Smith TWD Group have earned and sequestered their fat
profits, all the while retaining plausible, if reprehensible, deniability.
If, however, a public organization were in place from the beginning,
rather than the Joe Smith TWD Group's own "watchdog," the problem could have
been addressed in progress, before the damages were financially irreparable.
> > > > and how can it make any credible claims of independence?
> > >
> > > Independant of what?
> >
> > Independent of the interests it purports to oversee. I'm sure the Tobacco
> > Institute could produce endless studies verifying that cigarette smoking
> > promotes longevity, bright smiles, and fresh breath. Without an independent
> > organization to oppose the industry-driven propaganda, and if creditable,
> > objective data are not available, how can the consumer be expected to make
> > an informed decision?
>
> Question (which Larry has also raised): Do you feel UL does a good job
> of regulating the safety of consumer products? Do you trust the "UL"
> label? Do you know who funds UL?
That's a good example, but I don't know that it would apply as readily to
other industries with less direct consumer involvement. I have lightbulbs
in my house with the UL label, of course, but I don't have much direct
contact with Joe Smith TWD Group, so I as the anonymous citizen am less
likely to be aware of it.
> Well, if the road was too dangerous, the trucking company would either
> pay for a better road, wouldn't deliver, or whatever. Eventually, the
> costs would balance. If the road is unsafe because the locals wanted too
> cheap a road, it would drive up other costs to the point where people
> would either be comfortable with the risk vs reward, or the better more
> expensive road would look more attractive.
Well, this is fine on paper, too, but what about in the meantime? It
seems to set up pretty clearly the same old rich-get-richer/poor-get-poorer
scenario that many people perceive as inevitable under the Libertarian
framework. That is, the wealthy can afford to pay for better roads, so
shipping costs in their area go down, so prices go down to their area, so
they save more money. Meanwhile, the poor can't afford to pay for better
roads, so shipping costs in their area go up, so prices in their area go up,
so they have to spend more money. This is cumulative, of course, with the
fact that the impoverished will be decreasingly able to afford to send their
kids to better schools, so those kids are more or less guaranteed to make
less money, and therefore have to live in areas with bad roads, costly
shipping, and higher prices. My name is Yon Yonson, I work in Wisconsin, I
work at the lumbermill there...
> > It seems to me that any well-funded, organized, national military force
> > can, if a clear objective is established and a goal is set, wreak terrible
> > destruction upon a nation defended only by a voluntary (and, by extension of
> > your apparent views, privately-funded) militia.
>
> Oh, I don't know. I thought we settled that issue 226 (1) years ago...
> And I don't think that's the only data point available to us either.
I knew someone was going to say that. The nature of war, you'll agree,
has changed so fundamentally in 226 years that there's no point in comparing
them. Planted pikes will stop a cavalry charge, but who cares, if you're
bombing a nation from a thousand miles away?
Lindsay can correct me if I'm wrong, but the resources and time required
to move ordnance from Mother England to the Colonies were somewhat different
from today's world, not to mention communication problems. It is impossible
to compare the difficulty of fighting a pre-industrial age war (on distant
foreign soil) with an organized, modern, technologically advanced, national
military force attacking a sporadically organized, privatized, and volunteer
army.
> The most important instrument of accountability is a court system. There
> must be NO regulation of the court system (like legislative immunities
> or award caps). The court system should also keep an ear to public
> opinion (more so than it does today), but of course must continue to
> always do a rights based analysis of each case.
Attempts to deregulate the medical industries have demonstrated that
lawsuits increase dramatically and costs are passed immediately to the
consumer. To suggest that the solution is more, not less, litigation is
contrary to available evidence.
> Of course the court of public opinion is the most powerfull court. When
> big bad corporation X screws over someone, the public will react. If the
> corporation is bad enough, the public will start to shun the
> corporation, and if it's the only corporation making some product,
> someone will realize pretty quickly that there's a guaranteed market for
> a competing product.
This assumes, too, that Joe Smith TWD Group hasn't already established a
monopoly under which no guaranteed market exists, except for Joe Smith's
products. Further, they will no doubt be able to afford the most capable
spin teams and PR firms, so they'll *still* manage to make themselves seem
the most attractive option.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
246 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
