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

[Guest guest]

Hi Mark,

In a message dated 2/28/2005 11:20:54 AM Eastern Standard Time,

colowe@... writes:

Government has incentive to be inefficient at best and corrupt at

worst. Business has incentive to be efficient, competent and

fair.

____

Actually, businesses only have this incentive insofar as they are held

accountable to the law. For example, a business that regularly committs fraud

and

gets away with it has no incentive to be fair.

But let's look at your solution to the pollution problem. Is the business

setting it's own standard? Clearly, if the business's financial incentive is

to pollute, it has the same incentive to set standards that allow it to

maximize its own pollution.

____

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.

____

They earn consent to transactions. If they make environmental standards,

unless they are selling those standards, then they are essentially legislating

as a government would, and therefore have the exact same incentives a

government has with respect to the particular act of legislating the standards.

If

the standards are attached to the product, then they certainly have an

incentive to obey their own standards, and they do have an incentive to make

standards that consumers want. However, you must take into consideration that,

where polluting more means have a bigger, cooler, less expensive car, the

consumer's incentive is to pollute more, even though they are not simply

polluting

their OWN property, but rather everyone else's.

____

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?

____

I'd accept it as evidence that those who wrote it believed that government

had a nature to broaden its powers, and were under the naive misunderstanding

that a Constitution could actually restrict a government.

But-- are all the regulations on business evidence that business tends to

pollute, abuse workers, etc?

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/28/2005 11:42:31 AM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

oh, yeah, right. And this is FACT to you? If the society is democratic, is

it right to say that the government " extorts " money by " force " ? Note that I am

not basing this on any conception that the U.S. is democratic.

If by democratic you mean majority-rules, then I would think that extortion

by force would be applicable to the minority that voted against any given

taxation.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/28/2005 12:04:52 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Irene.M@... writes:

This is simply rediculous. I am not arguing that there is no corruption on

government. There is no more incentive to be inefficient in government than

in industry. Enron is another good example of this. During the energy

crisis they would shut down power plants for " repairs " and then order the

plants to stay shut down long after the repairs were finished. This was

hardly efficient but the lowered energy supply caused the prices to rise

again making them lots of money. Inefficient, corrupt and private.

______

Do you consider it " inefficient " and " corrupt " for workers to go on strike?

If not, what do you consider to be the difference?

Chris

[Guest guest]

and if I 'vote' against corporations having a right to exist as they do

now...

Re: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes (was

Supporting WAPF o...

In a message dated 2/28/2005 11:42:31 AM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

oh, yeah, right. And this is FACT to you? If the society is democratic, is

it right to say that the government " extorts " money by " force " ? Note that I

am

not basing this on any conception that the U.S. is democratic.

If by democratic you mean majority-rules, then I would think that extortion

by force would be applicable to the minority that voted against any given

taxation.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Inefficient perhaps, but corrupt no. Strikes are one of the few bargaining

chips that labor has. When workers strike it is to pressure the company to

bargain with them not to cheat customers. Also they normally announce when

they plan to strike. When Enron shut down the plants it was for repairs

but they kept them shut down artificially in order to artificially inflate

the prices and cheat the consumers. Also it wasn't like they announced that

they wanted a renegotiation of prices or they would shut down plants. It

was all quite secret until they were caught and it all came out.

Irene

At 09:39 PM 2/28/2005, you wrote:

>Do you consider it " inefficient " and " corrupt " for workers to go on strike?

>If not, what do you consider to be the difference?

>

>Chris

[Guest guest]

_____

From: ChrisMasterjohn@... [mailto:ChrisMasterjohn@...]

Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 12:36 AM

Subject: Re: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes (was

Supporting WAPF o...

Hi Mark,

In a message dated 2/28/2005 11:20:54 AM Eastern Standard Time,

colowe@... writes:

Government has incentive to be inefficient at best and corrupt

at

worst. Business has incentive to be efficient, competent and

fair.

____

Actually, businesses only have this incentive insofar as they are

held

accountable to the law. For example, a business that regularly

committs fraud and

gets away with it has no incentive to be fair.

But let's look at your solution to the pollution problem. Is the

business

setting it's own standard? Clearly, if the business's financial

incentive is

to pollute, it has the same incentive to set standards that allow

it to

maximize its own pollution.

____

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.

____

They earn consent to transactions. If they make environmental

standards,

unless they are selling those standards, then they are

essentially legislating

as a government would, and therefore have the exact same

incentives a

government has with respect to the particular act of legislating

the standards. If

the standards are attached to the product, then they certainly

have an

incentive to obey their own standards, and they do have an

incentive to make

standards that consumers want. However, you must take into

consideration that,

where polluting more means have a bigger, cooler, less expensive

car, the

consumer's incentive is to pollute more, even though they are

not simply polluting

their OWN property, but rather everyone else's.

____

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?

____

I'd accept it as evidence that those who wrote it believed that

government

had a nature to broaden its powers, and were under the naive

misunderstanding

that a Constitution could actually restrict a government.

But-- are all the regulations on business evidence that business

tends to

pollute, abuse workers, etc?

Chris

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

Are you addressing me? I believe it's netiquette to. teehee.

As for your " but- " , heavens no. I did not mean to imply that my

evidence (the COTUS) was for anything other than to support the

fact that the nature of government is to grow and corrupt and

oppress.

-Mark

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/1/2005 1:27:35 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Irene.M@... writes:

Inefficient perhaps, but corrupt no. Strikes are one of the few bargaining

chips that labor has. When workers strike it is to pressure the company to

bargain with them not to cheat customers.

How are workers refusing to work ( " cheating " their employer) in order to

drive up prices qualitatively different from electric companies refusing to

provide electricity ( " cheating " their customers) to drive up the cost of

electricity?

Also they normally announce when

they plan to strike. When Enron shut down the plants it was for repairs

but they kept them shut down artificially in order to artificially inflate

the prices and cheat the consumers.

Yes, but our society applies a moral double standard to the two acts that

are essentially the same, so it is no wonder they did it in secret, and labor

strikes have a relatively low probability of being broken up by the government,

whereas had Enron publicly announced that they would shut off electricity to

drive up their bargaining power (same thing workers are doing in strikes)

then the government would almost certainly have intervened.

Consider that union organizers and employers who want a union tend to

organize the union discreetly rather than announce to the manager before any

organization goes on, because the environment is such that it would be punished

and

broken up by the employer and rendered ineffective.

Also it wasn't like they announced that

they wanted a renegotiation of prices or they would shut down plants. It

was all quite secret until they were caught and it all came out.

Irene

Putting aside the moral question deal with above, do you think this would

have occurred in a situation where Enron was allowed to set their own prices?

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/1/2005 1:36:35 AM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

and if I 'vote' against corporations having a right to exist as they do

now...

____

Hi Gene,

I didn't feel like taking the time to rearrange your top-post so that my

sentence that your'e responding to would still be here. But...

I disagree with the personification within the court system of corporations,

if that's what you mean, and with the limited liability granted to the share

holders (although I'd allow for limited liability to be contractually

granted to some share holders by others as long as someone is repsonsible for

their

personal assets). If, on the other hand, you don't believe that people

should be able to own property collectively, I disagree. Or, if you don't

believe in private property at all, I also disagree.

I'm not sure how this relates to whether or not democracy mitigates the

coercive effect of taxation. Clearly it allows for a majority to consent to

the

taxes, but if the majority has the right to rule the minority, the coercion

isn't lessened on the minority by the fact that the society is democratic.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/1/2005 7:56:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

I haven't read the whole thread, so it is very hard to discern the original

from the reply below. I'll try...

____

[CHRIS] I apologize to you, Gene, and everyone reading, for the fact that my

quoting arrows just aren't coming out. Argh!

____

> In a message dated 3/1/2005 1:27:35 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> Irene.M@... writes:

>

> Inefficient perhaps, but corrupt no. Strikes are one of the few

bargaining

> chips that labor has. When workers strike it is to pressure the company

to

> bargain with them not to cheat customers.

> How are workers refusing to work ( " cheating " their employer) in order to

> drive up prices qualitatively different from electric companies refusing

to

> provide electricity ( " cheating " their customers) to drive up the cost of

> electricity?

You can't be serious? You simply can't be serious. How is it 'qualitatively'

different. There is nothing qualitatively different between a poor,

overworked, employee without adequate healthcare, desperately striking (and

losing $

and potentially a job) and a wealthy corporation cheating consumers in order

to make their profits even more obscene? That signature quote about

compassion is really nice - much like the ads that corporations put on TV about

how

much they care about people.

_____

I think we're approaching the problem differently, so when I say

" qualitative difference " I mean something different than you. I'm look at the

action,

from the point of view of a legal system of blind justice, and from the point

of view of an economic action, not the motivations of the different people.

If a hungry child stole a loaf of bread to eat, and a profitable corporation

committed fraud to steal millions of dollars, we could say, on the one hand,

that the act is theft, and therefore similar. We could also approach it

from another perspective and say that it was much more reasonable for the

hungry

child, and not only that, but the motivations were fundamentally different,

one to survive, and one to cheat to become every yet richer.

Would I exercise the same moral judgment on each? No, certainly not.

But anyway, perhaps its different in CA, but around here unionized workers

are doing pretty well.

Chris

[Guest guest]

I haven't read the whole thread, so it is very hard to discern the original from

the reply below. I'll try...

>

> In a message dated 3/1/2005 1:27:35 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> Irene.M@... writes:

>

> Inefficient perhaps, but corrupt no. Strikes are one of the few bargaining

> chips that labor has. When workers strike it is to pressure the company to

> bargain with them not to cheat customers.

> How are workers refusing to work ( " cheating " their employer) in order to

> drive up prices qualitatively different from electric companies refusing to

> provide electricity ( " cheating " their customers) to drive up the cost of

> electricity?

You can't be serious? You simply can't be serious. How is it 'qualitatively'

different. There is nothing qualitatively different between a poor, overworked,

employee without adequate healthcare, desperately striking (and losing $ and

potentially a job) and a wealthy corporation cheating consumers in order to make

their profits even more obscene? That signature quote about compassion is really

nice - much like the ads that corporations put on TV about how much they care

about people.

>

> Also they normally announce when

> they plan to strike. When Enron shut down the plants it was for repairs

> but they kept them shut down artificially in order to artificially inflate

> the prices and cheat the consumers.

> Yes, but our society applies a moral double standard to the two acts that

> are essentially the same,

They are so far from essentially the same, that anyone who can call them the

same is intellectually and ethically bankrupt.

>

> In a message dated 3/1/2005 1:27:35 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> Irene.M@... writes:

>

> Inefficient perhaps, but corrupt no. Strikes are one of the few bargaining

> chips that labor has. When workers strike it is to pressure the company to

> bargain with them not to cheat customers.

> How are workers refusing to work ( " cheating " their employer) in order to

> drive up prices qualitatively different from electric companies refusing to

> provide electricity ( " cheating " their customers) to drive up the cost of

> electricity?

>

> Also they normally announce when

> they plan to strike. When Enron shut down the plants it was for repairs

> but they kept them shut down artificially in order to artificially inflate

> the prices and cheat the consumers.

> Yes, but our society applies a moral double standard to the two acts that

> are essentially the same, so it is no wonder they did it in secret, and labor

> strikes have a relatively low probability of being broken up by the

government,

> whereas had Enron publicly announced that they would shut off electricity to

> drive up their bargaining power (same thing workers are doing in strikes)

> then the government would almost certainly have intervened.

>

> Consider that union organizers and employers who want a union tend to

> organize the union discreetly rather than announce to the manager before any

> organization goes on, because the environment is such that it would be

punished

> and

> broken up by the employer and rendered ineffective.

>

> Also it wasn't like they announced that

> they wanted a renegotiation of prices or they would shut down plants. It

> was all quite secret until they were caught and it all came out.

> Irene

>

> Putting aside the moral question deal with above, do you think this would

> have occurred in a situation where Enron was allowed to set their own prices?

>

> Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Implode,

Hey, you forgot me. (You're assuring us that you're gonna be in

heaven, right?)

-Mark

I doubt it, since has also scolded me for poor editing of my posts.

That, according to my faith, is what decides who meets eternal damnation.

I actually didn't forget you, actually. I just couldn't remember your name,

and decided that you were too insignificant to research it.

[Guest guest]

[Gene]

It very well may be true that Rumsfeld (I have no idea) gives

lots of money to charity - but the man is a war criminal, and whatever he

gives to charity does not mitigate his part in the slaughter of people, and

his role in a government that would take from poor people and give to rich

people.

____

[Chris]

For the record I oppose war criminals as well as the taking from poor

people

and giving to the rich. It appears you might be comparing me to Rumsfeld,

although I would point out that I'm not a war criminal.

_____

As usual you will have the last word on most everything. It's too exhausting

to do this over and over. But I will comment on this passage. Obviously the

entire point was that we often judge someone's compassion on their views,

and not whether they themselves might give money to the poor, or to causes

that benefit the poor. I cannot myself comment on whether you yourself are a

war criminal. I suspect that is, but I suspect that there are no

witnesses to testify against him.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/1/2005 11:13:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

As usual you will have the last word on most everything. It's too exhausting

to do this over and over. But I will comment on this passage. Obviously the

entire point was that we often judge someone's compassion on their views,

and not whether they themselves might give money to the poor, or to causes

that benefit the poor. I cannot myself comment on whether you yourself are a

war criminal. I suspect that is, but I suspect that there are no

witnesses to testify against him.

_____

Usually when we make a statement such that a given person would rather keep

his money and allow someone to starve than to give it up in order that they do

not starve, what we mean is that he wouldn't give up that money to

" mitigate " anyone's condition in such a danger.

Any reasonable person would consider a willingness on the part of that

person to give up his money voluntarily to mitigate such conditions a piece of

counter-evidence that contradicts the accusation that they would rather hold on

to the money and let the person starve.

The fact is that, regardless of whether either of us do or do not give money

to charitable causes, neither nor I have given you any information

on which you could base such an accusation.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>

> In a message dated 3/1/2005 11:13:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> implode7@... writes:

>

> As usual you will have the last word on most everything. It's too exhausting

> to do this over and over. But I will comment on this passage. Obviously the

> entire point was that we often judge someone's compassion on their views,

> and not whether they themselves might give money to the poor, or to causes

> that benefit the poor. I cannot myself comment on whether you yourself are a

> war criminal. I suspect that is, but I suspect that there are no

> witnesses to testify against him.

> _____

>

> Usually when we make a statement such that a given person would rather keep

> his money and allow someone to starve than to give it up in order that they do

> not starve, what we mean is that he wouldn't give up that money to

> " mitigate " anyone's condition in such a danger.

>

> Any reasonable person would consider a willingness on the part of that

> person to give up his money voluntarily to mitigate such conditions a piece of

> counter-evidence that contradicts the accusation that they would rather hold

on

> to the money and let the person starve.

>

> The fact is that, regardless of whether either of us do or do not give money

> to charitable causes, neither nor I have given you any information

> on which you could base such an accusation.

>

> Chris

>

Ok - (personal comments deleted) - I thought that you were smart enough to infer

that by me stating that you would rather keep your " wealth " rather than give it

to a starving person, while simultaneously, OBVIOUSLY having no knowledge of

's financial condition, and inferring that your's isn't the greatest, and

also emphasizing in one way or another in various ways and multiple times that I

consider what you are saying rather than your life to be at question here, I

meant this in reference to your views, not your own actions with your own money.

So sorry for 'accusing' you.

Can I stop now?