trc@houti.UUCP (08/23/83)
Response to Randy Haskins: I will presume that when you say "I consider myself rational" but "I cannot be convinced that LF capitalism is a good thing", that you must mean that you consider LF capitalism to be wrong on some firm rational grounds. What are they? The alternative is that you mean you will refuse to be convinced, regardless of the evidence, which would contradict your claim to rationality. Laissez-faire capitalism is the system consistent with the ideas of individual rights, and of the government being an agency created by men for the protection of those rights - not for interfering with them. This does not mean that the government does not punish violations of rights. Whoa! How did that kid turn into a "poor child in the ghetto" so fast! I seem to run into this a lot - we start off with a general discussion, and then when I make a general point, the altruists run for the borders - the borderline cases that is. If they cannot make the case from reason, they run to cases where they think the readers will feel sorry for some victims, rather than make some sort of counter-argument. Do you understand that you are implying "Objectivism will work fine for most people, but those must suffer for the benefit of these poor people over here"? Sorry if I seem to be being overly harsh on you Randy - this is really directed at a number of people, of whom you are just the latest. To address your questions directly: if the government had not taken on the role of paternalistic protector of the consumer, more private agencies and *businesses* would have arisen to take the role of watchdog. You can see examples of such where ever there is a largely ineffective govt agency. The EPA doesnt measure up? Up spring citizens who actively promote environmental issues. NASA is too conservative? The L5 society (and a dozen or so others) come into being. I am not saying that these groups always take the best routes, but merely pointing out that they do come into existence when the need is perceived. Consumer Reports is just one example of the sort of businesses that have arisen to fill social goals. So I dont believe that we would "Never be able to find out if Tryst caused cancer", etc. In fact, in many cases, such studies are instigated by public pressure in the first place - as with Agent Orange. As to that child and his mother - does she have no friends? No casual acquaintances at work? You seem to be missing the fact that a lot of communication is still done via word of mouth. One person reads something, decides it is important, and tells his neighbors. If they agree, they tell others. And even if that mother had no such personal acquaintances, it is quite likely that enough others would have heard of the problem in order for the product to be withdrawn, either due to a boycott, or a lawsuit. What company is going to keep producing and selling a product for $10.95 that then requires them to pay the costs of treating cancer in even 1 of 10,000 customers? Yes, life *is* tough if one is not rational. Rationality is the fundamental means that a human being has for survival. Giving it up means that one relies on whatever events happen around one to support one's life. Fortunately, most every person is born with the capacity to be rational. However, learning to use it is not entirely automatic, and many people get mentally lazy and substitute emotions, slogans, or simply the opinions of others, for thinking. Tom Craver houti!trc