RE: POLITICS - Anger management (Was: Chris and me rotting in hell)

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/3/2005 6:25:02 PM Eastern Standard Time,

seaorca@... writes:

" I don't have a particular criteria. It looks like a life of ups and downs

not untypical of life in the US. Not lounging in the lap of luxury but not

hustling in the ghetto either. I note several time in your life where you or

your family relied on government programs. Do you think your life would have

been improved if those had not existed? Do you think your job situation would

be

better if pesky OSHA and various labor laws didn't exist? Or do you think

that your bosses would institute better safety rules and working conditions

left to their own devices? "

____

[Chris's reply]

Dear ,

I think in some ways life would have been made better and in other ways life

would have been made worse. My bad choices in college are no one's fault

but my own, but I wouldn't have been able to fulfill my lack of judgment so

carelessly had I not been delivered more than enough cash to allow me to go to

college immediately without any care of being able to pay back the money I

wasn't suspending and meanwhile have fun with the extra cash without having to

work for it. On the other hand, my family would have been in serious trouble

earlier on if we hadn't been able to receive any aid from anyone during the

time where she was unable to work.

However, I would suggest that looking at the world as it is now and positing

the lack of one thing without considering the bigger picture and how the

lack of such things would affect the general situation in which we all live.

For the same reason, I don't think it's valid to criticize Gene for using

things produced by corporations. Heck, *I* oppose corporations as they

currently

exist. But I don't abstain from using computers simply because they were

produced by a business that has an unjust legal status that in truth is a

fiction created by courts and whose owners are not considered accountable under

law for that which they should be.

I would be difficult to detail all the things that I think would be

different in a libertarian world. For starters, many of the things done by

government would not simply not exist, but would be done privately. For

another, we

would all have more money to save towards cases of accidents if it weren't

forced from us. For yet another, while real wages would be higher for everyone

due to economic growth, if it weren't for the government's inflationary

monetary policy and its fiat paper money, there would not be an artificial

depression of real wages among specifically the lower classes. (Note that real

wages have stagnated for most people during the last 35 years while wages at

the

top have skyrocketed. The fact that the government's monetary inflation

prevents the natural increase in real wages for a static nominal wage causes a

disproportionate stagnation or even drop in the economic groups maintaining

static nominal wages, which are the lower classes in this example.) Beyond

that, I'm also lucky to have a family that could have given us more help had we

need it, and I think that the welfare state has been a major contributor to

the destruction of the family we've seen corresponding to its rise. If one

safety net is erected only to undermine a superior safety net, it's value is

questionable.

One interesting fact. In, I think 1931, the Congress resolved to make its

first every aid to a charitable institution, in the amount of, iirc, 45

million dollars, to the American Red Cross. The Red Cross opposed the measure,

saying it's funds were sufficient at the moment, and predicted that such a

precedent would cause the demise of private charitable contributions. That the

American Red Cross found its own funds provided from private sources sufficient

to deal with the high rate of unemployment at that time is interesting.

Perhaps they were misestimating the scenario, but it would seem that they would

be the last to be motivated to give a false impression that government aid

wasn't needed.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 19:39:45 EST ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

> By your criteria, does this constitute a " life of privilege " ?

I don't have a particular criteria. It looks like a life of ups and downs not

untypical of life in the US. Not lounging in the lap of luxury but not hustling

in the ghetto either. I note several time in your life where you or your family

relied on government programs. Do you think your life would have been improved

if those had not existed? Do you think your job situation would be better if

pesky OSHA and various labor laws didn't exist? Or do you think that your bosses

would institute better safety rules and working conditions left to their own

devices?

Don't get me wrong, despite my comments I'm not a big fan of government (and not

of capitalism either). If I were king I would live in a left-libertarian

(libertarian socialist) society...in which case I would no longer be king. But

given that is unlikely to happen I strongly favor protection of the public by

the govenment against business abuses. But I neither want the government nor

business controlling me.

[Guest guest]

> Don't get me wrong, despite my comments I'm not a big fan of government (and

not

> of capitalism either). If I were king I would live in a left-libertarian

> (libertarian socialist) society...in which case I would no longer be king.

But

> given that is unlikely to happen I strongly favor protection of the public by

> the govenment against business abuses. But I neither want the government nor

> business controlling me.

>

>

Well said. You'd have my vote for king.

[Guest guest]

mine too.

Irene

At 03:32 PM 3/3/05, you wrote:

> > Don't get me wrong, despite my comments I'm not a big fan of government

> (and not

> > of capitalism either). If I were king I would live in a left-libertarian

> > (libertarian socialist) society...in which case I would no longer be

> king. But

> > given that is unlikely to happen I strongly favor protection of the

> public by

> > the govenment against business abuses. But I neither want the

> government nor

> > business controlling me.

> >

> >

>

>Well said. You'd have my vote for king.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES

> * < />NATIVE

> NUTRITION online

> * <http://onibasu.com/>SEARCH the entire message archive with Onibasu

>

>

><mailto: -owner >LIST OWNER: Idol

>MODERATORS: Heidi Schuppenhauer

> Wanita Sears

>

>

[Guest guest]

> Don't get me wrong, despite my comments I'm not a big fan of government

> (and not of capitalism either). If I were king I would live in a

> left-libertarian (libertarian socialist) society...in which case I would

> no longer be king. But given that is unlikely to happen I strongly favor

> protection of the public by the govenment against business abuses. But I

> neither want the government nor business controlling me.

>

>

A second on that!

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]

_____

From: seaorca@... [mailto:seaorca@...]

Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 5:29 PM

Subject: RE: POLITICS - Anger management (Was: and me

rotting in hell)

On Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 19:39:45 EST ChrisMasterjohn@...

wrote:

> By your criteria, does this constitute a " life of privilege " ?

I don't have a particular criteria. It looks like a life of ups

and downs not untypical of life in the US. Not lounging in the

lap of luxury but not hustling in the ghetto either. I note

several time in your life where you or your family relied on

government programs. Do you think your life would have been

improved if those had not existed? Do you think your job

situation would be better if pesky OSHA and various labor laws

didn't exist? Or do you think that your bosses would institute

better safety rules and working conditions left to their own

devices?

Don't get me wrong, despite my comments I'm not a big fan of

government (and not of capitalism either). If I were king I would

live in a left-libertarian (libertarian socialist) society...in

which case I would no longer be king. But given that is unlikely

to happen I strongly favor protection of the public by the

govenment against business abuses. But I neither want the

government nor business controlling me.

---------------------

,

Who do you think has more control over you right now, business or

government? ( " Control " in the sense of non-consensual direct

force.)

-Mark

[Guest guest]

> Re: RE: POLITICS - Anger management (Was: and me

>rotting in hell)

>

>

>By your criteria, does this constitute a " life of privilege " ?

>

>Thanks for asking,

>Chris

I think you are amazing. With all the obstacles you've faced in life, you

are one of the most compassionate, intellectually keen, honest, caring and

humorous people I've ever met. It's certainly an honor to be your friend.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

> Re: RE: POLITICS - Anger management (Was: and me

>rotting in hell)

>

>

>By your criteria, does this constitute a " life of privilege " ?

>

>Thanks for asking,

>Chris

" I think you are amazing. With all the obstacles you've faced in life, you

are one of the most compassionate, intellectually keen, honest, caring and

humorous people I've ever met. It's certainly an honor to be your friend. "

Is this the Manchurian Candidate?

[Guest guest]

Robin-

>Only the Native peoples (I.E. Native Americans) had true

>freedom, true autonomy, and worked with the earth not against it.

Actually, it's a romantic myth that native peoples exclusively worked with

the earth (whatever exactly that means anyway). They radically changed

their environments too.

-

[Guest guest]

Deanna-

>Might I add only that world oil

>production may have already peaked, which may actually be a mixed

>blessing for the planet and those who care.

If you think resource wars and famines constitute a blessing, I suppose so.

-

[Guest guest]

> RE: RE: POLITICS - Anger management (Was: and me

>rotting in hell)

>

>>

>>By your criteria, does this constitute a " life of privilege " ?

>>

>>Thanks for asking,

>>Chris

>

> " I think you are amazing. With all the obstacles you've faced in life, you

>are one of the most compassionate, intellectually keen, honest, caring and

>humorous people I've ever met. It's certainly an honor to be your friend. "

>

>Is this the Manchurian Candidate?

WOW, you know I was thinking the same thing when YOU gushed over him the

other day, when you wrote:

I

>think really that only people like you and would

>countenance idiocy

>like that. I give a little more credit to though I dunno.

Never heard you fawn over like that before...maybe there IS something

to your theory....

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Idol [mailto:Idol@...]

[Note: Text with two arrows more than mine is from , not ].

> >Hearing some of the comments from the pro-corporation clones on this

> >thread, I have to wonder if they have ever lived a life

> > other than one of privilege.

For the record--although this has no bearing on the validity of my arguments

and it's quite cheap to suggest that it does--I come from a middle-middle

class family.

> > If so, I have to wonder why they have bought

> > into the lie

> >of big business giving a damn about anyhing other than profit at all

> >other expense.

I might wonder why you feel the need to mischaracterize our position.

Nothing in my argument requires any assumptions about the benevolence or

honesty of businessmen, although it seems to me that your argument *does*

require assumptions about the benevolence, honesty, and wisdom of

politicians and bureaucrats. Ideally, competing private interests should be

sufficient to ensure quality. Of course, the world is not ideal, but it

can't be. Utopia is not an option. The free market need only provide better

results than government intervention, not perfect results.

> >You only have to walk into one or two food warehouses (such

> as I have)

> >and see the filthy conditions that occur (rat urine & feces on food,

> >bird feces, cockroaches, etc.) and hear the indifference that the

> >owners of such places have toward the public to know the

> importance of

> >government regulation of industry and business. Or smell some of the

> >rotton seafood that producers try to pass off, or see some of the

> >bacterial contamination. Or see all the unreported alergens,

> unapproved

> >dyes, and illegal pesticides present in imported foods that would go

> >right into your kitchen without regulation. They think they can get

> >away with it until they get caught. Just think if there were

> no one to catch them at all.

Thank you. This plays into my argument perfectly. The FDA is responsible for

making sure that those things don't happen, and if you are to be believed,

it has failed miserably. And yet--and this bolsters the point I made earlier

about government having no incentives to succeed--you use this failure as an

argument for expanding, not reducing, the role of the FDA. No matter how

badly the FDA bungles things, it will not be allowed to die--and in fact

will be given ever more power--as long as there is widespread public belief

that the state is uniquely qualified to fulfill this role. Therein lies the

problem. When businesses fail, they shrink as consumers turn to

alternatives. When government agencies fail, they grow because voters see no

alternative. Government, by its nature, selects for failure.

> Unfortunately, most people today have very little historical

> perspective. They're not aware of why many food regulations

> were established in the first place.

IIRC, Federal regulations were established largely due to public outcry over

the claims made in Upton Sinclair's fictional work, " The Jungle, " which he

was commissioned to write as a tool of socialist propaganda. Here's a better

response to this argument than I could write. As a disclaimer, I have not

researched this topic much and cannot personally guarantee the accuracy of

the claims in this article:

http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=4084

I don't know as much about the history of state regulation, but note in

particular that it was already present at the time " The Jungle " was written.

When government regulation has destroyed the market for private

certification, you can't blame the market for the failure of government to

live up to the responsibility it has usurped.

> I'd suggest reading Sinclair ...

Do you mean Upton Sinclair, or did Sinclair write something on it,

too?

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 22:16:12 -0500 " mark robert " wrote:

>Who do you think has more control over you right now, business or

>government? ( " Control " in the sense of non-consensual direct

>force.)

I'd prefer to do a benefit analysis. I wake up in a home where all my needs

are supplied by products I have purchased from businesses. So that's

business +1. My bed is safe because that mfg has to meet government safety

requirements, ditto for my TV, coffee pot, breakfast food, housing materials

and many of my possessions. So that gives government a +1 also. My car meets

good environmental requirements and has government required safety devices,

so business gets me to work and government helps protect my safety. +1 to

each. The laws relating to traffic safety come from the gov, as does traffic

law enforcement, so +1 to the gov for helping protect my safety. At work,

OSHA law helps protect my safety...another +1 for gov. Repeat all the above

going home for the evening. So far it's +2 for business, +4 for gov.

On the minus side I cannot run around naked in the street if I want, so -2

goes to gov. On the business side, I am subjected to capitalist

brainwashing pressure to buy buy buy every time I turn on the TV, read a

magazine or newspaper, see a bus, or listen to the radio, which I find

highly intrusive and greatly inhospitable to a spiritual focus on life.

So -5 for business. Since we live in a country where gov doesn't impact my

religion it just gets a 0 on that score.

So, in my balance sheet of benefits to me minus detriments to me I get

Government +2, Business -3. So I think that business control is more to my

detriment than government control. Neither one subjected me to direct force

in my typical work day, but business was far more intrusive and obnoxious.

On the topic of force, we shall just disagree. When I get a driver's license

I agree to abide by certain rules and laws including the right of the police

to subject me to a blood/breath alcohol exam whether I like it or not. Don't

want to abide? Don't drive! It's for public safety and I support that. Same

thing when you get a business license, you agree to inspections appropriate

to your industry for the public safety. Don't want to be inspected? Do

something else. Business has an abysmal record of policing themselves and

I'm not interested in seeing them try to do it again. If we were in a left

libertarian society with business co-opearatives I'd reconsider the whole

topic.

I also wouldn't mind if the governement restricted advertising to a small

fraction of what it is today, but that is not very likely. In the meanwhile

I simply avoid the media in general. And I still call Candlestick Park by

that name, despite it becoming a whore to business interests.

[Guest guest]

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Sea Orca [mailto:seaorca@...]

>

> On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 22:16:12 -0500 " mark robert " wrote:

>

> >Who do you think has more control over you right now, business or

> >government? ( " Control " in the sense of non-consensual direct

> >force.)

>

> I'd prefer to do a benefit analysis. I wake up in a home

> where all my needs are supplied by products I have purchased

> from businesses. So that's business +1. My bed is safe

> because that mfg has to meet government safety requirements,

> ditto for my TV, coffee pot, breakfast food, housing

> materials and many of my possessions. So that gives

> government a +1 also. My car meets good environmental

> requirements and has government required safety devices, so

> business gets me to work and government helps protect my

> safety. +1 to each. The laws relating to traffic safety come

> from the gov, as does traffic law enforcement, so +1 to the

> gov for helping protect my safety. At work, OSHA law helps

> protect my safety...another +1 for gov. Repeat all the above

> going home for the evening. So far it's +2 for business, +4 for gov.

>

> On the minus side I cannot run around naked in the street if

> I want, so -2 goes to gov. On the business side, I am

> subjected to capitalist brainwashing pressure to buy buy buy

> every time I turn on the TV, read a magazine or newspaper,

> see a bus, or listen to the radio, which I find highly

> intrusive and greatly inhospitable to a spiritual focus on life.

> So -5 for business. Since we live in a country where gov

> doesn't impact my religion it just gets a 0 on that score.

Putting aside the highly questionable assumption that government is

necessary to provide the benefits attributed to it above, it seems that you

would be willing to give up your material possessions (+1), your safety at

home (+1), your ability to get to work safely (+1), and your safety at work

(+1), just to be able to avoid advertisements (-5). Is that correct?

[Guest guest]

On Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 21:57:01 -0800 " Berg " wrote

>For the record--although this has no bearing on the validity of my arguments

>and it's quite cheap to suggest that it does--I come from a middle-middle

>class family.

No, it's entirely reasonable to ask, since people of privilege would be most

likely to support those things which made them privileged. It's a matter of

environment. Exceptions being someone like Robbins perhaps. Apple doesn't

fall far from the tree. etc.

> > If so, I have to wonder why they have bought

> > into the lie

> >of big business giving a damn about anything other than profit at all

> >other expense.

>I might wonder why you feel the need to mischaracterize our position.

Since I directed my comment toward " pro-corporation clones " I have to assume

that both you and Mark consider yourselves to be so, since you believe my

comments were directed towards you. at least put in a disclaimer before we

started talking.

>Nothing in my argument requires any assumptions about the benevolence or

>honesty of businessmen, although it seems to me that your argument *does*

>require assumptions about the benevolence, honesty, and wisdom of

>politicians and bureaucrats.

Good, because I do not believe that most corporate businessmen possess either of

the above qualities, neither do many politicians. The difference being that I

can vote politicians out of office if enough other people agree with my

assessment.

>Ideally, competing private interests should be

>sufficient to ensure quality.

But they don't, as my experience has shown.

> Of course, the world is not ideal, but it

>can't be. Utopia is not an option. The free market need only provide better

>results than government intervention, not perfect results.

This goes on the presumption that there are only 2 options. I consider left

libertarianism to be a much better option than either of the above. In the

meanwhile, I have to trust government more than corporate hegemony.

> >You only have to walk into one or two food warehouses (such

> as I have)

> >and see the filthy conditions that occur (rat urine & feces on food,

> >bird feces, cockroaches, etc.) and hear the indifference that the

> >owners of such places have toward the public to know the

> importance of

> >government regulation of industry and business. Or smell some of the

> >rotten seafood that producers try to pass off, or see some of the

> >bacterial contamination. Or see all the unreported allergens,

> unapproved

> >dyes, and illegal pesticides present in imported foods that would go

> >right into your kitchen without regulation. They think they can get

> >away with it until they get caught. Just think if there were

> no one to catch them at all.

>Thank you. This plays into my argument perfectly.

You're welcome...but I doubt it.

>The FDA is responsible for

>making sure that those things don't happen,

For some foods. USDA for others.

>and if you are to be believed,

>it has failed miserably.

No, in fact it is doing quite well. My example shows the crap that I have

experienced some businesses try to pass off. Virtually ALL inspected business

have some areas for improvement. But for domestic products I'd estimate that

less than 1% of what passes through our lab is volatile for anything. I can't

speak for inspectors...after all the job of inspectors is to find violations,

but my feel is that most inspections result in things that can be fixed

relatively easily.

It has been demonstrated with both animals and humans that a random stimulus is

more effective in training as a consistent or expected stimulus. The random

unannounced government inspection is as effective and any planned series of

inspections. If a business signs up for inspections..they know the will be

inspected. The current business now knows nothing about when they will be

inspected. Far more effective at catching a business that cuts corners.

>And yet--and this bolsters the point I made earlier

>about government having no incentives to succeed--you use this failure as an

>argument for expanding, not reducing, the role of the FDA.

No, it really doesn't. You can try to blame the FDA for the practices of some

businesses who don't give a crap, but it doesn't wash. If business were as you

paint it shouldn't NEED inspection at all. Yet it does.

>No matter how

>badly the FDA bungles things, it will not be allowed to die--and in fact

>will be given ever more power--as long as there is widespread public belief

>that the state is uniquely qualified to fulfill this role.

Business is certainly not qualified, as has been historically proven. Heck I

don't agree with all the decisions that come out of the beltway, but I can name

you far more FDA success stories for every failure you can post to me.

>Therein lies the

>problem. When businesses fail, they shrink as consumers turn to

>alternatives. When government agencies fail, they grow because voters see no

>alternative. Government, by its nature, selects for failure.

These are not failing businesses, they are ones who don't care.

And you haven't show any failure by a government agency. Again, if you want to

talk of specific failures vs. successes I'm happy to oblige.

>> Unfortunately, most people today have very little historical

>> perspective. They're not aware of why many food regulations

> >were established in the first place.

>IIRC, Federal regulations were established largely due to public outcry over

>the claims made in Upton Sinclair's fictional work, " The Jungle, " which he

>was commissioned to write as a tool of socialist propaganda.

You can call it that, or you can be honest and call it a factual documentary of

practices at that time. It was also precipitated by journalists such as

Hopkins who wrote " The Great American Fraud " and wrote for Colliers:

" Seventy-five million dollars a year is a moderate estimate of the volume of

business done by pseudo-medical preparations which " eradicated " asthma with

sugar and water, " soothed " babies with concealed and deadly opiates, " relieved "

headaches through the agency of dangerous, heart-impairing, coal-tar drugs,

" dispelled " catarrh by cocaine mixtures, enticing to a habit worse than death's

very self, and " cured " tuberculosis, cancer, and Bright's disease with disguised

and flavoured whiskies and gins. "

He had a lot to do with the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906. Not

to mention fake butter and other adulterated food products.

>Here's a better

>response to this argument than I could write. As a disclaimer, I have not

>researched this topic much and cannot personally guarantee the accuracy of

>the claims in this article:

http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=4084

I have researched it, so I see no reason to respond to something you post

without any guarantee of accuracy, especially since it comes from a right

extremist website where a member of it's board of scholars, Pafford, calls

for a Christian and culturally homogenous United States.

>I don't know as much about the history of state regulation, but note in

>particular that it was already present at the time " The Jungle " was written..

Showing the need for a unified system of regulation rather than the patchwork

quilt suggested under private inspection.

>When government regulation has destroyed the market for private

>certification, you can't blame the market for the failure of government to

>live up to the responsibility it has usurped.

What market for private certification? When did that ever exist? How did the

government destroy it?

>> I'd suggest reading Sinclair ...

>Do you mean Upton Sinclair, or did Sinclair write something on it,

>too?

Well, I meant Upton S, however I have to point out that Sinclair worked

at Upton Sinclair's socialist commune for a time. And you might want to read

" Babette " :

" 'No, what I fight in Zenith is the standardization of thought, and, of course,

the traditions of competition. The real villains of the piece are the clean,

kind, industrious Family Men who use every known brand of trickery and cruelty

to insure the prosperity of their cubs. The worst thing about these fellows is

that they're so good and, in their work at least, so intelligent. You can't hate

them properly, and yet their standardized minds are the enemy.' "

" Men who had made five thousand, year before last, and ten thousand last year,

were urging on nerve-yelping bodies and parched brains so that they might make

twenty thousand this year; and the men who had broken down immediately after

making their twenty thousand dollars were hustling to catch trains, to hustle

through the vacations which the hustling doctors had ordered. "

[Guest guest]

_____

From: Sea Orca [mailto:seaorca@...]

Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2005 1:19 PM

Subject: RE: POLITICS - Anger management (Was: and me

rotting in hell)

On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 22:16:12 -0500 " mark robert " wrote:

>Who do you think has more control over you right now, business

or

>government? ( " Control " in the sense of non-consensual direct

>force.)

I'd prefer to do a benefit analysis. I wake up in a home where

all my needs

are supplied by products I have purchased from businesses. So

that's

business +1. My bed is safe because that mfg has to meet

government safety

requirements, ditto for my TV, coffee pot, breakfast food,

housing materials

and many of my possessions. So that gives government a +1 also.

My car meets

good environmental requirements and has government required

safety devices,

so business gets me to work and government helps protect my

safety. +1 to

each. The laws relating to traffic safety come from the gov, as

does traffic

law enforcement, so +1 to the gov for helping protect my safety.

At work,

OSHA law helps protect my safety...another +1 for gov. Repeat all

the above

going home for the evening. So far it's +2 for business, +4 for

gov.

On the minus side I cannot run around naked in the street if I

want, so -2

goes to gov. On the business side, I am subjected to capitalist

brainwashing pressure to buy buy buy every time I turn on the TV,

read a

magazine or newspaper, see a bus, or listen to the radio, which I

find

highly intrusive and greatly inhospitable to a spiritual focus on

life.

So -5 for business. Since we live in a country where gov doesn't

impact my

religion it just gets a 0 on that score.

So, in my balance sheet of benefits to me minus detriments to me

I get

Government +2, Business -3. So I think that business control is

more to my

detriment than government control. Neither one subjected me to

direct force

in my typical work day, but business was far more intrusive and

obnoxious.

On the topic of force, we shall just disagree. When I get a

driver's license

I agree to abide by certain rules and laws including the right of

the police

to subject me to a blood/breath alcohol exam whether I like it or

not. Don't

want to abide? Don't drive! It's for public safety and I support

that. Same

thing when you get a business license, you agree to inspections

appropriate

to your industry for the public safety. Don't want to be

inspected? Do

something else. Business has an abysmal record of policing

themselves and

I'm not interested in seeing them try to do it again. If we were

in a left

libertarian society with business co-opearatives I'd reconsider

the whole

topic.

I also wouldn't mind if the governement restricted advertising to

a small

fraction of what it is today, but that is not very likely. In the

meanwhile

I simply avoid the media in general. And I still call Candlestick

Park by

that name, despite it becoming a whore to business interests.

-------------------

,

Your benefit and analysis is a quite selective picking and

choosing, and your scoring system is far from unbiased. But I

understand your hesitance with a straight analysis of direct

control; your earlier claim that business has more direct control

over you than government will be very difficult to demonstrate.

The safety (quality) of your bed and tv etc come more from

free-market competition than from gov regulation. Gov regulation,

to a large degree, actually works the opposite: it stifles a lot

of new-business competition (makes it to expensive to start up)

that would act as extra incentive to keep costs down and quality

up. Who is exerting more control over you (the consumer) in this

example? Well, it's sure not business. And if you are in the

business (or trying to), gov exerts a direct physical control

over you with threats of jail for non-compliance.

Thanks to the gov, those extra safety features that car makers

are forced to install (also preventing new car companies from

getting on board to lower prices) that you are forced to pay for,

means that you will HAVE to be on dangerous roads more time to

work at your dangerous job for more hours to pay for them = an

over-all INCREASE in the danger quotient. Who is exerting more

control over you (the driver/consumer) in this example? Well

again, it's sure not business.

It's telling of your bias that you score plusses for gov to help

protect you to-and-from work, but neglect to give any points to

business for creating that work which is your job. Regarding your

score for business, you penalize them the worst for advertising,

which has nothing to do with direct force of any kind. Would you

rather advertising be illegal and the direct force of law be used

to control the indirect influence of advertising? Would that be a

better world for you? (Oh, I see in your last paragraph, you

WOULD like to see that. OMG!) What about the TV you are watching

while complaining? Will you claim that business is controlling

you by having made you buy the TV and now by making you watch it?

You better claim that, cause that's about the only

control-by-business that you're going to prove here.

It looks like you have taken the gov slogan " driving is a

privilege (given to you by the gov) " and applied it to starting a

business. Just change " right " to " privilege " and presto-chango,

you have automatically transformed controlling gov regulations

into necessary protection for the public good. Maybe you feel the

same way about other kinds of other things that most people see

as freedoms or rights? Well apparently gov feels that way too,

because they unconstitutionally regulate (by direct force) all

manner of things, by using that same excuse.

In America, you are " free " to engage in any/all of the following

non-violent, consensual, victimless things:

1) Own property.

2) Do what you want on your property.

3) Make improvements on it.

4) Build a building on it.

5) Paint it.

6) Install a new air-conditioning system in it.

7) Add a deck to it.

8) Start a business in it.

9) Hire an employee.

10) Pay him what he will accept.

11) Manufacture a product and freely trade it.

12) Hang a sign to advertise.

13) Make a profit.

14) Pursue your happiness.

15) Pursue your health.

16) Grow what you want.

17) Consume what you want.

18) Buy what you want.

19) Store it on your property.

20) Sell your property.

I was just kidding; the above is not a list of American freedoms

- unless you describe freedom as something for which you need

extensive gov permission in the form of taxes, permits, licenses,

restrictions, code adherences, and numerous other expensive

requirements. No direct gov force here, right? Of course not,

because even though they will arrest and jail me if I do not

comply, I always have the " freedom " in America to NOT do those

things. After all, they are privileges, not freedoms, correct?

(Now there's a spin on " freedom " !) Of course it's all fine and

good because everyone else's Constitutionally-valid rights are

null and void when it comes to your " spiritual " needs, right?

-Mark