#The Libertarian Platform
12 messages in this thread
Yes, deT applauded American civic spirit, but he also wondered at the end
of D in A about a new species of oppression, wherein the authority og the
government
"would be like that of a parent if, like that authority, its object
was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep
them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should
rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their
happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the
sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their
security, foresees and supplies their necesseties, facilitates their
pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry,
regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances:
what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the
trouble of living?"
Sadly, this is a VERY accurate description of the direction American
government has been heading in this century. As of right now, American
government executes each of the functions listed above, to some degree,
except (so far) for the part about sparing us the trouble of living.
Considering that he wrote the above 150 years ago, Alexis D. is one hell
of a prophet.
Kent
I'm not denying that deT was extremely percipient. However, like it or
not, there are certain powers that someone or something will always have.
In a so-called libertarian society, big companies, largely unaccountable
to anyone but the CEO and/or owners, will have many of the powers that are
currently held by a government that is at least somewhat accountable to
the people.
Paul – wearing my black construction paper funeral suit
The theory is that business will always be accountable to the consumer.
Unresponsive companies would get less business, responsive companies would
get more. Bad guys shrink, good guys grow.
The consumers have what the business wants: money. In the absence of a
monopoly, which has been addressed ad nauseum elswhere, the consumers have
the purveyors by the shorts.
Do companies sometimes do bad things? Sure. It's an imperfect world.
Kent
Accountability to the consumer doesn't necessarily reflect employment
practices. Consumers may not know or care what happens to employees, or
the environment, or whatever.
Paul – wearing my black construction paper funeral suit
Consumers don't have to care what happens to employees. Employees know.
If the work or the pay sucks, they quit, and the company incurs the
expense of training new employees or raising wages to rehire employees.
Companies that incur more expenses than their competitors will be
disadvantaged. Now, if it's cost effective to abuse the workers, somebody
will do it, and that's when employees organize.
I seem to remember Larry saying that the platform doesn't oppose employees
organizing, but it does oppose government intervention in labor/management
disputes.
As to the environment, the number of hazardous materials and their
possible reactions with each other or the environment is so complex and
long term that you HAVE to have regulation. I wish it wasn't so, but…
Unfortunately, the regulations appear designed more to enfranchise
environmental lawyers and EPA bureaucrats than to protect the environment.
BTW, I hope your funeral suit was assembled with EPA approved glue,
preferably manufactured without needless horse deaths.<g>
Kent
Yes, but if every basic job pays $3/hour and takes place in toxic smoke
filled rooms or among dangerous machines, or whatever similar conditions,
the worker isn't going to have much choice. If employers get together to
maintain a blacklist of troublesome employees, the worker won't have much
of a choice. Etc.
>As to the environment, the number of hazardous materials and their
>possible reactions with each other or the environment is so complex and
>long term that you HAVE to have regulation. I wish it wasn't so, but…
Yes, my point exactly.
>Unfortunately, the regulations appear designed more to enfranchise
>environmental lawyers and EPA bureaucrats than to protect the
environment.
Yep, the EPA bites big donkeys legs as an environmental protection
body.
>BTW, I hope your funeral suit was assembled with EPA approved glue,
>preferably manufactured without needless horse deaths.<g>
Yes, in fact, my construction paper was made from fifth generation
recycled paper, and plant-waste-derived glue, and no metal parts. <g>
Paul – wearing my black construction paper funeral suit
>if every basic job pays $3/hour and takes place in toxic smoke filled
rooms… If employers get together to maintain a blacklist of troublesome
employees…<
This is getting pretty sinister. If all my neighbors got together and
decided to beat the crap out of me, that would suck, too. I choose not to
spend much time worrying about the consequences of unlikely events.
Although some abuses do take place, I see no evidence of a conspiracy to
kill workers. Sounds like a labor fantasy.
If employers fail to inform employees of dangers in the workplace, they
are criminally and civilly liable for subsequent health problems. If they
DO inform the employees and the employees CHOOSE to accept the risk, the
employees TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for the consequences.
As to "dangerous machines" and the worker having no choice: Before
civilization, if you didn't go get some food, you didn't eat. If you
weren't careful, something might eat you. So two primary human motivators
ought to be Work and Caution.
In our enlightened society, if you don't work, you must be a victim of
SOMEBODY, and need to get into a twelve step recovery program and hit the
talk show circuit. If you're not careful and, say, spill your own coffee
in your own lap and get burned, or have sex on the tracks in a subway
tunnel and get hit by a train, it simply must be the result of a
conspiracy of callousness.
If you don't work, you don't eat.
If you're not careful, you'll get hurt or killed.
It's a jungle out there, man.
Kent
>As to "dangerous machines" and the worker having no choice: Before
>civilization, if you didn't go get some food, you didn't eat. If you >weren't
careful, something might eat you. So two primary human motivators >ought to be
Work and Caution.
Heck, between the mountain lions and great white sharks, something might eat
you NOW. It's getting pretty lively around here.
-Karl
<GULP!> <GLUG-GLUG-GLUG>
Paul – wearing my black construction paper funeral suit
>mountain lions and sharks…<
Well, you know we all have the right to not be eaten, so the government
must have failed to adequately protect those folks.
Fortunately, every lawer in the state is busy with the O.J. trial, so
maybe there won't be a suit. <g>
An don't forget, those pesky killer bees are around here somewhere.
Someone's gotta be liable, dammit.<g>
Kent
Oh, not according to the animal rights people. They say you can always get
another person, but the lions cannot be replaced. Yes, PEOPLE LAST!
-Karl
People infest to the detrement of other species.
C. Davey