Re: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes (was Supporting WAPF or N...

[Guest guest]

--- 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.

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

> -----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.

[Guest guest]

>

> > -----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.

[Guest guest]

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:

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

>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,

[Guest guest]

_____

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

[Guest guest]

-

>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?

-

[Guest guest]

Gene-

>You're an *******. I stop here.

Personal attacks are not allowed on this list.

-

[Guest guest]

_____

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

[Guest guest]

> -----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).

[Guest guest]

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.

-

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

-

>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.

-

[Guest guest]

> -----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.

[Guest guest]

-

>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.

-