Guest guest Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 --- In , Idol <Idol@c...> > It's becoming intolerable, and its especially outrageous that this Mark > character responded to my request for a little courtesy with a bunch of > self-justifying excuses for laziness. , I am equally outraged, if not more. B. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 Mark, You must have missed or not got to another post where I asked where the boundary is between business and government and vice versa regarding industry specific lobbyists and campaign contributions. I see mutual collusion to equal chance of corruption. My point in the Vioxx article is what are multiple major pharmaceutical statin producing corporation representatives doing on an FDA board making a decision on a product in a product group they market and profit from and what is the FDA doing allowing such when both the government and the businesses ultimately are responsible only to the citizens and consumers that fund their budgets or profits. With the pharmaceuticals, most drugs are researched and developed at universities with government granted taxpayer funds. You're right government is not out for profit. The pharmaceutical companies along with any other marketable technologies are given to corporations. Testings, jumping through FDA or other acronym hoops, mass production and advertising follow. Farm subsidies just like university research grants work to supplement many farmers providing to the mega food conglomerates the same, lowering a major cost of production. Government's fault they payoff corporations here reducing corporate costs and adding to our price with a beginning as well as end cost? Or is it the corporation's for accepting it, taking or getting advantage of it? One hand does wash the other both ways. Tort reform is not only a legislative greater protection from class actions just to corporations. It protects all individuals in government who either have prior corporate employment, corporate investments or corporate campaign contributions. The right's public statement for tort reform was lawyers make too much money, plaintiffs get too little. Consumer rights lawyers were the largest contributors to the left in the last election. Wanita > Wanita, > > > > You blame business when government colludes with them? Your > examples are ones of government influence: playing favorites and > tilting the playing field. I agree that there should be no caps > or screens on corporate liability but I don't blame business for > asking for it; I blame gov for granting it. You explain very > nicely that which governments are very good at: being paid off to > grant favors and discriminate. The corrupting factor in your post > is not business. > > > > -Mark > _____ > When legislators are compromised, having to be for corporate > future campaign > funding as much or more than with who their jobs are meant to be > for or ex > corporate individuals go to government you can get an Enron or > this > FDA,Vioxx return to market decision in the NY Times > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/25/politics/25fda.html > coincidentally days after tort reform was passed disallowing > state attorney > generals and state courts to file class actions. They now must be > screened > for frivolity by federal courts and federally appointed judges. > With the > only priority, profit margin now more protected against liability > the cause > of the decision, the harmful product, what was broke can be > ignored. No > science, no technical know how, no consumer, just business. > > Wanita > >> Government legislators might not have scientific or technical > however they >> are not single handedly writing policy. When technical policy > has to be >> written they hire experts in the field, from government > agencies (FDA, EPA >> etc) and private industry to do that. And although you are > correct in >> saying that government isn't the pinnacle of honesty and > fairness, private >> industry is certainly no better. >> Irene >> >> >> At 11:11 AM 2/27/2005, you wrote: >>>Gov legislators are by no means >>>the reference standard of scientific or technical ability, and >>>certainly not the pinnacle of honesty and fairness. In other >>>words, all would be better accomplished by private enterprise > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.1 - Release Date: 2/27/2005 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 > -----Original Message----- > From: implode7@... [mailto:implode7@...] > > > Government has incentive to be inefficient at best and corrupt at > > worst. > > If there is no profit motive, then the incentive would have > to come from laws. There is always incentive to be corrupt - > isn't that built into the idea of corruption? So, there have > to be built in disincentives that outweigh the incentives. What does it mean for a private entity to be corrupt? When we say that a government is corrupt, we mean that it's abusing the power it has been given. But private entities have no true power except to the extent that they receive it from the state, so as I understand the word " corruption, " it, like power, must ultimately flow from the state. > >Business has incentive to be efficient, competent and fair. > > Fair? LOL! That's a good one. Ruthless yes. I just don't see fair. I don't suppose I could disabuse you of the notion that " LOL " is an argument? Anyway, businesses do have an incentive at least to be perceived as fair to their customers (though usually not to their competitors). For example, suppose you go into a store to buy a table. You pick one you like and ask how much it is, and the salesman says, " Well, how much do you have? " Would you shop there? I wouldn't. > >Incentive = tendency = basic nature - which is dictated by > >fundamental setup, regarding how they get their money. > > Governments essentially extort it by force and businesses > essentially > >earn it by consent. > > oh, yeah, right. And this is FACT to you? It's not fact to him. It's fact. Don't let ideology blind you to the obvious. Governments get money through taxation. Businesses make it from sales. > If the society is > democratic, is it right to say that the government " extorts " > money by " force " ? Since you're a radical leftist, I realize that you have very little respect for individual rights. But can't you tell the difference between a majority vote and unanimous consent? You may consent to having the fruits of your labor taken from you, but I don't. That means that the taxes I pay are extorted by force, and no election can change that. > Note that I am not basing this on any > conception that the U.S. is democratic. It is not, nor was it ever intended to be. It is, however, much more democratic than it used to be. > > The first piece of evidence I would use to back up my > anti-government > > claim(s) would be the Constitution of the US and the amount > of it that > > is dedicated to limiting the abusive/ " evil " > > nature of government and its powers. Would you accept that as a > > credible piece of evidence? Isn't this just an appeal to authority? That the framers of the Constitution considered government to be a dangerous servant and a fearful master doesn't prove that it actually is. (Which is not to say that it isn't.) > No. The problem is that there isn't enough legislated to > limit the " abusive/evil " nature of corporations. The problem is twofold: 1. The limits placed to hold the abusive nature of government in check are simply ignored. 2. This allows the government to pass laws enabling abuse by corporations, unions, and other pressure groups. As long as government has discretionary power, various entities will compete to control that power for their own ends. And the ones who win will never be the decent people who just want to mind their own business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: implode7@... [mailto:implode7@...] > > > > > Government has incentive to be inefficient at best and corrupt at > > > worst. > > > > If there is no profit motive, then the incentive would have > > to come from laws. There is always incentive to be corrupt - > > isn't that built into the idea of corruption? So, there have > > to be built in disincentives that outweigh the incentives. > > What does it mean for a private entity to be corrupt? When we say that a > government is corrupt, we mean that it's abusing the power it has been > given. Actually, I would disagree that this is what we 'mean'. I suppose by definition, if, say, a particular government organization is mishandling $, then we would say that it is abusing power. But, I think that when most people say that a government is corrupt, they are not referring to the fact that it is abusing power, but that it is doing something dishonest, probably something to do with $. Also, I think that governments can abuse power in ways that most people wouldn't call 'corrupt'. >But private entities have no true power except to the extent that > they receive it from the state, so as I understand the word " corruption, " > it, like power, must ultimately flow from the state. So, if a corporation is stealing from the public, this corruption is 'flowing' from the state because it is only in the framework of what the state allows/disallows that something can be viewed as corruption? I'm not sure how that is helpful. > > > >Business has incentive to be efficient, competent and fair. > > > > Fair? LOL! That's a good one. Ruthless yes. I just don't see fair. > > I don't suppose I could disabuse you of the notion that " LOL " is an > argument? > You don't need to. It wasn't intended to be an argument. LOL. See - it was like that one. > Anyway, businesses do have an incentive at least to be perceived as fair to > their customers (though usually not to their competitors). To the extent that the customer has a choice between competing businesses that also play on this perception. But, obviously, managing the perception is very different from actually conforming to it. > > >Incentive = tendency = basic nature - which is dictated by > > >fundamental setup, regarding how they get their money. > > > Governments essentially extort it by force and businesses > > essentially > > >earn it by consent. > > > > oh, yeah, right. And this is FACT to you? > > It's not fact to him. It's fact. Don't let ideology blind you to the > obvious. Don't let ideology blind you to the obvious. >Governments get money through taxation. Businesses make it from > sales. Are you a rap artist? > > > If the society is > > democratic, is it right to say that the government " extorts " > > money by " force " ? > > Since you're a radical leftist, I realize that you have very little respect > for individual rights. You're an asshole. I stop here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 Deanna, Everyone agrees that it is a problem. And the problem is worse in better threads (more importance = more popularity = more participation = more posting styles = more confusion). This free-form information exchange thing is fascinating in and of itself, as there is no universally enforced (or even recognized) standard. All I can say is just start reading and you'll pick it up. Maybe we should start a whole thread about thread posting styles. Maybe I just did. Maybe you just did! Will you legislate the posting formats? Will you enforce your legislation? Can you? Should you? Blab la bla. It's all a blur mannnn. -mark _____ From: Deanna [mailto:hl@...] Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 8:27 AM Subject: Re: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes (was Supporting WAPF or N... I can't bear it any longer! I have become cross-eyed trying to follow various quoting without tagging, top posts, bottom posts, parsed posts. It would be so nice if would come through with his posting etiquette ideas, because they are badly needed for this thread. And it is not just Mark, there are several people posting in this thread and it is just really difficult to follow along or even know who said what. I just happened to choose this message for reply. It would be so lovely if y'all use name tags and maybe follow one style, saying parsing, and stick with it. That way it reads like a script and it follows logically. For instance: [Chris] blah blah blah [Deanna's reply] blah blah blah [Mark then adds] blah blah blah [wrote something else] blah blah blah [Deanna replies to this other thought] blah blah blah [Mark adds his $.02] blah blah blah It's just a suggestion. It's a worthy topic that I would like to follow along with, but it is very difficult with so many different styles and people's writings. Thank you for your consideration. Deanna mark robert wrote: >See below: > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 I can see you outraged ones need to appoint yourself kings and get together some desperately needed legislation here. First, you'll need to come up with a catchy name for my crime. Then you shall write a t least a hundred pages of complex legal-speak that no one will ever fully understand. Lastly you shall inform me of my punishment. Or maybe you could use this post as an example of exactly what I should have deleted, but did not. -Mark _____ From: downwardog7 [mailto:illneverbecool@...] Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 10:49 AM Subject: Re: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes (was Supporting WAPF or N... --- In , Idol <Idol@c...> > It's becoming intolerable, and its especially outrageous that this Mark > character responded to my request for a little courtesy with a bunch of > self-justifying excuses for laziness. , I am equally outraged, if not more. B. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 >Deanna, > > > >Everyone agrees that it is a problem. And the problem is worse in >better threads (more importance = more popularity = more >participation = more posting styles = more confusion). This >free-form information exchange thing is fascinating in and of >itself, as there is no universally enforced (or even recognized) >standard. All I can say is just start reading and you'll pick it >up. Maybe we should start a whole thread about thread posting >styles. Maybe I just did. Maybe you just did! Will you legislate >the posting formats? Will you enforce your legislation? Can you? >Should you? Blab la bla. It's all a blur mannnn. > > > >-mark > > Mark, I realize you may be new to this group - is indeed the owner of it, btw - but actually there is a loosely recognized standard that posts from time to time, especially when haphazard posting within one thread is apparent AND the volume of posts is high. It is certainly not a requirement (until POLITICS and OT tags that does enforce), but it is a courtesy. I think I used to top post, but reading 's suggestions were very helpful to me, and I think in heated debates it is really helpful to have the individual ideas parsed with old content first, then the reply to the thought, and so on. For your edification, I shall repost, below my name, 's most recent request for posting etiquette, from November 30, 2004, message #60548. Deanna Hey folks, This list has gotten very heavy on the volume again as of late. It can be very frustrating concerning post etiquette. Below is a post I made awhile back on posting etiquette. I have revised a few things since then. I would ask that all read it and humbly consider what I say. You don't have to follow it. I'm not the list owner. Nor is it directed at any one person. But it does help, IMO, when such stuff is generally followed. thanks, ###################### Hi folks, I have a ton of posts from this list that I have yet to read, but as I am perusing them I have noticed a few things that makes reading them much more difficult. So below I have listed some suggestions that might make handling the volume on this list much easier. Note: these are *suggestions* not orations from Mt. Sinai, so please do not take personal offense. I'm only trying to help make the experience on this list as painless as possible. And as always, with everything that is mentioned on this list, you are free to ignore any and everything I say. 1. Top posting makes it difficult to read and follow the logic of a response to a post, especially a long one. It also makes it difficult to keep a logical flow when responding to a top poster who is responding to someone else. What is top posting? It is when you respond to a post by putting your reply at the top of the previous message rather than right after the part of the message you are responding too. There seems to be an awful lot of that as of late. This is particularly annoying when you have a long response and it is not immediately apparent what or who you are responding to. Then one has to read your long post and often an equally long previous message only to find that the portion you were responding too is buried toward the very bottom of the previous post. Unless you are extremely judicious like Idol in your top posting (and he is the only top poster I have ever come across that I can read without difficulty) I would suggest you avoid it. I would imagine a good rule of thumb would be if you can read your response and the previous post without any scrolling, then top posting is probably okay although it still hampers a multi-thread post. Personally there are some posts I don't respond to simply because I don't want to have rearrange the paragraphs so people know what I am talking about. Better for most of us to answer immediately below the section to which we are responding. Having said that, please be judicious about bottom posting as well (as I note in #2). Putting a one sentence response at the end of a long post can be just as annoying as a long top post. 2. Related to the above is dead posts. Please please please remove all aspects of the previous post that is not germane to your response. Some top posters will answer with one line and then leave all the rest of the previous post intact. Or some folks will answer after the whole body of a previous message with just a couple of lines that only pertain to a portion of the message. Some will answer within the body of the message while still leaving intact large portions of the message which have nothing to do with their response. And others have 4 or 5 previous messages following their response. Or scrolling through a particularly long post only to find an " okay " planted somewhere in the middle. To make it easier on all of us, delete the dead portion of the posts. 3. As we have learned in the many off topic posts, it is very helpful when one either changes the subject line to match such a change in the reply or adds a tag to the current subject line to indicate its emphasis. And while it is obvious on off topic posts, it is just as helpful for *on topic* messages. 4. Please make sure you wrap your text when responding. If you don't and someone is reading your post at the website, then it blows out the formatting as one cannot see your message in the current window, but has to scroll across the entire page to read it. 4. If you are replying in the body of a message, please find a way to clearly set off your current remarks against any previous remarks by you or someone else. There are many ways to do this so I'm not going to insult anyone's intelligence by making suggestions. But I just read two posts where I couldn't tell what was new, what was old, and who was saying what. And it does help to either leave the email address or the name of the person you are responding to in a post. There have been several posts where both the name of the previous poster and the email were stripped and I had no idea who was being answered. 5. If you feel the need to get mad at someone on list, I would suggest you wait a day or two before responding. There really is no place for cheap shots or below the belt shots publicly, as no one has to respond immediately. One of the severe tests of maturity is not only the ability to agree to disagree, but to do so agreeably. And I don't mean without emotion or intensity, as there are some strong writers and personalities on this list. I mean without personal ad hominem attacks. You can wait a day, a week, a month, or even two months as in Mike 's case before responding. And if your anger still burns even then at someone's *ideas* such that you have to denigrate their *person*, then maybe the problem isn't with that person. 6. I'm not opposed to one liners like thank you and that was great, etc. but they can be annoying when accompanied by LONG text. Again, I think the dead post idea would apply here. 7. I think this is a great list personally. I learn from it all the time, even from people with whom I have profound disagreements. I wish I had the time to really engage. I still see some posts on NT Politics that make me drool, and I have deliberately left alone some posts on NN I KNOW would have been very extended had I joined in (the feminism thread immediately comes to mind). At any rate, these are just my opinions on how to keep this list manageable. Thanks for listening, FWIW, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 _____ From: Deanna [mailto:hl@...] Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 1:35 PM Subject: Re: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes (was Supporting WAPF or N... >Deanna, > > > >Everyone agrees that it is a problem. And the problem is worse in >better threads (more importance = more popularity = more >participation = more posting styles = more confusion). This >free-form information exchange thing is fascinating in and of >itself, as there is no universally enforced (or even recognized) >standard. All I can say is just start reading and you'll pick it >up. Maybe we should start a whole thread about thread posting >styles. Maybe I just did. Maybe you just did! Will you legislate >the posting formats? Will you enforce your legislation? Can you? >Should you? Blab la bla. It's all a blur mannnn. > > > >-mark > > Mark, I realize you may be new to this group - is indeed the owner of it, btw - but actually there is a loosely recognized standard that posts from time to time, especially when haphazard posting within one thread is apparent AND the volume of posts is high. It is certainly not a requirement (until POLITICS and OT tags that does enforce), but it is a courtesy. I think I used to top post, but reading 's suggestions were very helpful to me, and I think in heated debates it is really helpful to have the individual ideas parsed with old content first, then the reply to the thought, and so on. For your edification, I shall repost, below my name, 's most recent request for posting etiquette, from November 30, 2004, message #60548. Deanna ----------------------- Deanna, OK, that's more like it; much more readable than 's scolding. Can do. Although I usually only top-post when the other guy did, I will bottom post from now on. And now I see more clearly about one-liners following many-liners. Although the many other suggestions mostly consist of relevant judgment calls, I will try to keep them in mind. Sorry for the inconvenience. -mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2005 Report Share Posted March 2, 2005 - >But private entities have no true power except to the extent that >they receive it from the state, That is truly one of the most laughably absurd things I've ever heard anyone say. When a mobster kneecaps someone, he has received his power from the state? When company thugs beat people up and threaten their families to stop them from unionizing, they received this power from the state? When a company illegally dumps toxic waste and makes a bunch of people sick, their power of people's health is on loan from the state? If I take a gun and shoot someone, I've received my power from the state? > > Note that I am not basing this on any > > conception that the U.S. is democratic. > >It is not, nor was it ever intended to be. It is, however, much more >democratic than it used to be. You think the US is more democratic today than ever before? - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2005 Report Share Posted March 2, 2005 Gene- >You're an *******. I stop here. Personal attacks are not allowed on this list. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2005 Report Share Posted March 2, 2005 _____ From: Idol [mailto:Idol@...] Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 11:12 AM Subject: RE: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes (was Supporting WAPF or N... wrote: >But private entities have no true power except to the extent that >they receive it from the state, That is truly one of the most laughably absurd things I've ever heard anyone say. When a mobster kneecaps someone, he has received his power from the state? When company thugs beat people up and threaten their families to stop them from unionizing, they received this power from the state? When a company illegally dumps toxic waste and makes a bunch of people sick, their power of people's health is on loan from the state? If I take a gun and shoot someone, I've received my power from the state? - ---------------- , There's a perfect example of over-snipping the relevant. Here's the context of 's Full statements: " What does it mean for a private entity to be corrupt? When we say that a government is corrupt, we mean that it's abusing the power it has been given. But private entities have no true power except to the extent that they receive it from the state, so as I understand the word " corruption, " it, like power, must ultimately flow from the state. " If I am translating correctly, is saying that individuals and smaller groups have less power of corruption, and larger groups (especially ones that have been granted special governing powers) have more. Of course, the State being the largest of those types of groups means it has the most power of corruption. Private entities, because they are granted no special governing powers, have less-to-no power of corruption. The context is not crime, but government abuse/oppression. [, did I get it about right?] -Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2005 Report Share Posted March 2, 2005 > -----Original Message----- > From: Idol [mailto:Idol@...] > > - > > >But private entities have no true power except to the extent > that they > >receive it from the state, > > That is truly one of the most laughably absurd things I've > ever heard anyone say. When a mobster kneecaps someone, he > has received his power from the state? When company thugs > beat people up and threaten their families to stop them from > unionizing, they received this power from the state? When a > company illegally dumps toxic waste and makes a bunch of > people sick, their power of people's health is on loan from > the state? If I take a gun and shoot someone, I've received > my power from the state? Well, no. Obviously anyone can go out and commit a violent crime. And there's a possibility that he'll get away with it. No political system can change that. But that's not power in the same sense of the word that we use when we say the state has power. The state has the power to exercise coercion in full public view with impunity. If a private entity wants to exercise coercion, it must either do it clandestinely, and risk being caught, or it must convince the state to permit it to act coercively. In short, the state has a monopoly on the *legal* use of coercion, and a private entity seeking similar privilege must receive it from the state, either through active assistance or through neglecting its duty to prevent private coercion. Interesting that you mention company thugs beating up union agitators. Hasn't it typically gone the other way in recent decades, with union members committing violence against and intimidating management and replacements, often with impunity? How many incidents of " company thugs " beating up employees to prevent unionization have there been in the last fifty years? > > > Note that I am not basing this on any conception that the U.S. is > > > democratic. > > > >It is not, nor was it ever intended to be. It is, however, much more > >democratic than it used to be. > > You think the US is more democratic today than ever before? Certainly more than it when it was founded. Democracy was held in fairly low regard by the framers of the Constitution. Originally, Representatives were the only Federal officeholders to be elected directly (hence the name), and only white, male property-holders could vote. Presidential electors weren't elected by popular vote until 1820 (or thereabouts), and Senators weren't required to be elected popularly until 1913 (29 states implemented popular election of Senators prior to that; I'm not sure of the timeline). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2005 Report Share Posted March 2, 2005 Mark- >There's a perfect example of over-snipping the relevant. Is it indeed? Then what would you consider relevant? This? > > > > > > > _____ > >From: Idol [mailto:Idol@...] >Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 11:12 AM > >Subject: RE: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes (was >Supporting WAPF or N... > > > That's taken directly from your message. >Here's the context of 's Full statements: > > " What does it mean for a private entity to be corrupt? When we say that a >government is corrupt, we mean that it's abusing the power it has been >given. But private entities have no true power except to the extent that >they receive it from the state, so as I understand the word " corruption, " >it, like power, must ultimately flow from the state. " > >If I am translating correctly, is saying that individuals >and smaller groups have less power of corruption, and larger >groups (especially ones that have been granted special governing >powers) have more. Of course, the State being the largest of >those types of groups means it has the most power of corruption. >Private entities, because they are granted no special governing >powers, have less-to-no power of corruption. The context is not >crime, but government abuse/oppression. [, did I get it >about right?] There's no need for translation. said that private entities have no true power, and that's the portion of his statement that I specifically disputed. (I didn't bother getting into the details of what constitutes corruption, though if I'd had time -- and the inclination -- I could've disputed his notions on that too.) Or more concretely: stipulated that private entities have no true power except what they receive from the state, and based on his power-centric definition of corruption, concluded that corruption is exclusively the province of the state. I disputed his stipulation. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2005 Report Share Posted March 2, 2005 From: " Berg " <bberg@...>> >If a private entity wants to > exercise coercion, it must either do it clandestinely, and risk being > caught, or it must convince the state to permit it to act coercively. > > In short, the state has a monopoly on the *legal* use of coercion, and a > private entity seeking similar privilege must receive it from the state, > either through active assistance or through neglecting its duty to prevent > private coercion. State? Is it state, federal or governance beyond local? What Constitution and Bill of Rights? The corporatocracy, you hint at gives your missing pieces in the recent book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. Wanita -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.1 - Release Date: 2/27/2005 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 5, 2005 Report Share Posted March 5, 2005 - >In short, the state has a monopoly on the *legal* use of coercion, and a >private entity seeking similar privilege must receive it from the state, >either through active assistance or through neglecting its duty to prevent >private coercion. Even this isn't true. If you and I sign a contract, either one of us can coerce the other to fulfill the terms of the contract (all other considerations, like fraud, illegal contracts, etc., aside). >Interesting that you mention company thugs beating up union agitators. >Hasn't it typically gone the other way in recent decades, with union members >committing violence against and intimidating management and replacements, >often with impunity? How many incidents of " company thugs " beating up >employees to prevent unionization have there been in the last fifty years? True, once the mob took over a lot of unions things turned the other way, but I was just selecting various examples from relatively recent history. It's a mistake to think things will always be exactly as they are today. Or to trot out an old chestnut, people who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. > > >It is not, nor was it ever intended to be. It is, however, much more > > >democratic than it used to be. > > > > You think the US is more democratic today than ever before? > >Certainly more than it when it was founded. Now you're just moving the goalposts. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 5, 2005 Report Share Posted March 5, 2005 > -----Original Message----- > From: Idol [mailto:Idol@...] > > >In short, the state has a monopoly on the *legal* use of > coercion, and > >a private entity seeking similar privilege must receive it from the > >state, either through active assistance or through > neglecting its duty > >to prevent private coercion. > > Even this isn't true. If you and I sign a contract, either > one of us can coerce the other to fulfill the terms of the > contract (all other considerations, like fraud, illegal > contracts, etc., aside). And it does so with the active assistance of the state, as I mentioned above. Private entities generally cannot legally enforce contracts on their own. Anyway, you agree, don't you, that forcing someone to fulfill a prior agreement is radically different from the kind of coercion of which I was speaking? If I were to buy a car and agree to pay for it in installments, and then fail to make payments, the bank could sue me for the balance of the loan. But the state can take my money, or throw me in jail, or what-have-you, without any agreement whatsoever. > > > >It is not, nor was it ever intended to be. It is, however, much > > > >more democratic than it used to be. > > > > > > You think the US is more democratic today than ever before? > > > >Certainly more than it when it was founded. > > Now you're just moving the goalposts. More precisely, moving them back. I said that it was more democratic " than it used to be, " which you took, incorrectly, to mean " than ever before. " My answer to your question was consistent with the wording and intent of my original statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2005 Report Share Posted March 6, 2005 - >And it does so with the active assistance of the state, as I mentioned >above. Private entities generally cannot legally enforce contracts on their >own. Your lack of historical perspective is showing. In the absence of state enforcement, there'd be private enforcement -- as there has been in the past. >Anyway, you agree, don't you, that forcing someone to fulfill a prior >agreement is radically different from the kind of coercion of which I was >speaking? If I were to buy a car and agree to pay for it in installments, >and then fail to make payments, the bank could sue me for the balance of the >loan. There's some difference of kind, yes, but in the absence of a strong disincentive, there'd be nothing stopping many private entities from abusing their power. The state generally provides that incentive in modern social systems, but in a state-free system only rich people with their own private security forces would be safe. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.