From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Fri Jul 09 2004 - 01:43:41 BST
Arlo,
> OK. Stay with the lead example. Should there be regulations in place that
> prohibit disposing lead waste in areas where it can be shown to effect the
> groundwater? In the case of Tijuana, once this lead is disposed, and it
> causes serious problems, should the companies be forced to clean it up?
Is the Spanish government aware of the common law against polluting
upstream affecting a neighbor downstream? Are extra regulations required
to enforce a law that's have been around in the civilized world for
centuries? If so, why doesn't the Spanish government have such a
regulation and, if it does, why doesn't it enforce it?
> >No country was more regulated that Soviet Russia, yet it's record of
> >industrial "horrific conditions" was truly "horrific" compared to the U.S.
> >Go to any over-regulated Eastern bloc country if you want to see real
> >"horrific conditions."
>
> And how do you take my argument to favor over-regulation? This is another
> example of a false dichotomy, all we can have is *no* regulations or the
> extreme opposite.
It always starts with a "little regulation." Then do-gooders come along
and add more regulations. Eventually the country ends up with a lot of
regulations as the busy-bodies of the world keep interfering with other
people's lives in order to create their versions of Utopia. Thus, the
world ends up with a Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba and a hundred other
totalitarian governments.
> Oh come on. Are you telling me that paying several cents an hour to an
> impoverished workforce, who as a result of this and other exploitative
> actions can never hope to transcend poverty is merely "low" in a relative
> sense? You have enough common sense to know when people are being paid
> fairly and equitablely. Take a look at these people, my friend, and if you
> can justify their wages as merely "low" in a relative sense, then I think
> you prove my criticism of the current dialogue in this country.
I have enough common sense to know that thousands of immigrants came to
this country with nothing but the shirts on their backs and have
prospered. This country wasn't built by on people seeking handouts or
whining about "fairness." They rolled up their sleeves and went to work,
grateful to live in a country where they were free to compete in the
marketplace.
> >I never claimed the free market is altruistic. Quite the opposite. A free
> >market is based on selfish interests negotiated among traders. The end
> >result is "betterment" for all compared socialistic systems of government
> >interference.
> "Betterment for all"? How are the Tijuanese laborers "bettered"? By simply
> being kept alive? And how are the families in my town and many others who
> lost their livelihoods so that wealthy capitalists could earn "just a
> little more" "bettered"? How are the millions of workers whose main life
> activity (labor) is so alienated from their being that they "don't care"
> (to use Pirsig's words)? Are they "bettered" because of all the wonderful
> consumer choices they have when they go shopping? Perhpas we disagree
> fundamentally on what "betterment" means.
Yes, I guess we do. Nothing is more precious than individual freedom.
Review the MOQ if you need reassurance that freedom is the highest good.
> >Again, "decent wages" is a relative term. What's "indecent" for you and me
> >may mean a better life for someone else. Moreover, as far as I know Coke
> >hasn't imprisoned or hanged anyone who disagrees with its corporate
> >policies.
>
> It is not a "relative term". You and everyone else knows damn well when the
> line is crossed. Forgive my anger here, but justifying several cents to the
> hour as "relative", when anyone with eyes can see the conditions these
> people live under is maddening. Go spend a few days in Tijuana and tell me
> their wages are only "relatively" low. Sheeesh.
Why don't you tell me the cure for poverty throughout the world.
> Too bad there is no common, ancient law about treating others with
> fairness.
"Fairness" is a concept best suited to the playground. "It's not fair that
Johnny gets picked to play ball before me." To those who harp on fairness
I say, "Get used to it. Life isn't fair." The best way to treat others is
"Live and let live." The best way to get ahead is study and work hard.
> >Your premise seems to be that without government interference the country
> >would immediately revert to the 19th century, ignoring all technological
> >improvements since then. A dubious premise IMO.
>
> Why? Are you suggesting that somehow capitalism became more moral since
> then? All one has to do, again, is look at the factory conditions and slave
> labor in Tijuana (which by the way, I am reusing to keep this discussion
> concrete, if you'd like I can use other examples) to see there is little
> difference between there and early industrial Britain. If companies move to
> places like Tijuana, so that they can operate like such, why should I
> believe that if allowed they would operate any differently here?
Where have you been? Ever heard of unions, of robots, of the shift from an
industrial to a service economy?
> And as for "technological improvements", I think Pirsig pointed out that
> technology bereft of Quality is vacuous. And I don't see much has changed
> from his descriptions of labor then until now.
Well, I don't think Pirsig is blaming the economic system of free
enterprise for the shortcomings of technology. He blames the scientific
worldview of a purposeless, amoral universe.
> Good. I propose then the next round of tax cuts come from eliminating
> corporate handouts.
I second the motion.
> >What would you suggest as a substitute for "money" as the impetus in the
> >economy?
>
> Quality, of course.
And what if Quality to me and my neighbor means money?
> >In U.S. all citizens (as well illegal immigrants) have access to basic
> >healthcare.
>
> Surely you jest. I can count eight people alone that I am close with that
> have no medical coverage that worry endlessly about getting sick because
> they can't afford doctor visits. One has a serious cavity and can't go to
> a dentist. Another I know is wearing six year old prescription glasses
> because she has no vision insurance. If you think the average person can
> afford this out-of-pocket you are wrong. And these are all full-time
> employed people. I don't know what world you live in Platt, but be grateful
> you don't live down here with us.
No emergency rooms where you live? No free clinics? Do you live in
Mexico?
> No, Platt, it is not a regulation I wish imposed. It is a condition I think
> would emerge if the dialogue could shift from "earning money" to "doing
> good".
And what about those who think "doing good" is earning money?
> I want to end the "if it is done in the name of pursuing wealth, we can't
> criticize it" blockade to reasonable dialogue. I want to promote ideas that
> could re-connect the laborer with the product, perhaps through realistic
> profit-sharing or local production/consumption. I want to overcome the
> capitalism/socialism false dichotomy that is so adamantly argued, that only
> modern capitalism can promote free-markets.
Well, if you have better ideas, let's hear 'em. I'll bet they'll involve
some form to state coercion affecting the freedom of individuals to go
about their business as honest traders in an open marketplace.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jul 09 2004 - 01:41:54 BST