Re: Re: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes

[Guest guest]

this list is becoming a haven for right wing political extremists. It is enough

to make me start to question the correctness behind its nutrtional premises.

What is it about NT that seems to inspire such pro corporate nastiness? I dunno.

I'm very disillusioned with this list right now.

>

> >> 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?

> >

> [implode 7]

> > 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.

>

> OK, let's get rid of the emotionally loaded adjectives and analyze the

> two situations.

> In one, a worker seeks a certain return for his product. He will

> either find such a return, remain unemployed, or adjust his

> expectations and accept a lower return. It's slightly more complex if

> he is working for somebody already and wants a higher return from the

> same employer. The workers can band together and demand more money. If

> the amount is not too much more, the employer may grant it, since the

> cessation of labor involves costs and inconvenience. Or he may hire

> new workers at the prevailing wage (Note that this analysis does not

> include any laws passed to alter the playing field.)

>

> In the other, an electric company seeks a certain return for its

> product. It will either find such a return, not sell its electricity,

> or adjust its expectations and accept a lower return. It's slightly

> more complex if people are using electricity already and the company

> wants a higher return from the same customers. The company can demand

> more money. If the amount of the rate hike is not too much more, the

> customer will pay it, or if it's exorbitant, they will buy less

> electricity and find alternatives to its use. (Note that this analysis

> does not include any laws passed to alter the playing field.)

>

> In both cases, there are no obligations involved. The workers are not

> obliged to work for an employer, and the electric company is not

> obliged (morally) to sell electricity to anyone.

>

> Government uses the argument of necessity to alter the economic

> equation in both cases.. Since it's necessary that people have jobs,

> they forbid the firing of striking workers. Since people have become

> dependent on electricity, they forbid plant closings and rate hikes.

> The problem of course is that not only is neither thing necessary (just

> pretty convenient), but the argument from necessity underlies virtually

> all government intervention, including for instance pasteurization

> laws. And just as those have more to do with the convenience of the

> dairy industry than the " necessity of safe milk " so too do utility

> regulation and labor laws have more to do with buying votes than

> necessity.

>

> www.users.en.com/jaquick

> Evolution's a real bitch...and she's back in heat.

> --Mike Schneider

>

>

[Guest guest]

[Gene]

Of course, the fact that there are some examples of governments committing

atrocities does not mean that to make things better now means assigning more

power to corporations. That some people commit murders in cars is not in

itself a reason to ban cars.

_____

[Chris]

Hi Gene,

None of us have advocated advancing the power of corporations. and

I (and I think others too) have both explicitly stated that we oppose the

power of businesses beyond voluntary exchange that is granted them through

partnerships with the state.

I have also stated (and I think most of the other libertarians in the

discussion would agree) that I oppose the personification of corporations in the

legal system, which is without doubt an enormous contribution to the unjust

power of corporations. Businesses are property of people, not people.

It seems to be that these are both major decreases in the power of

corporations.

____

[Gene]

That is pretty funny. I happen to be 7'7 " 350 lbs of raw muscle.

____

Really? That's pretty impressive. Your'e a full 2 feet taller than me. Do

you play basketball?

Chris

[Guest guest]

>

> [Gene]

>

> That is pretty funny. I happen to be 7'7 " 350 lbs of raw muscle.

>

>

> ____

>

> Really? That's pretty impressive. Your'e a full 2 feet taller than me. Do

> you play basketball?

>

Pole Vault