orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/21/85)
> [] > Another question: > Do libertarian dictionaries contain the word "corruption?" > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > No. > > Corruption is a government activity. > If McDonalds wants to adulterate the hamburger with saw-dust, > and/or charge $75 for a Big Mac, this is bad business not corruption. > (The market place keeps them from such "corrupt practices".) > As there is no market place in the "government services business" > we can't call government stupidity "bad business" so we call it CORRUPTION. > danw There certainly *is* a marketplace in government services: it's called "elections". If you think the government is corrupt then you have a choice every election: throw the rascals out of office. If you think that government is intruding where it should not then vote for government officials that will lessen such intrusion. As long as there is a democratic system that allows various political groups to compete then there certainly *is* both a marketplace in government services and accountability in some sense. I realize that this use of the term "marketplace" is not precisely the same as its use in economic theory. To be most precise I suppose one could label it a market in "government officials" rather than "government services". Voting for the government officials is assumed to result in differing approaches to government and the provision of government services. While this is not always true, it is true to some extent. It is simply ridiculous to claim that businesses are never either corrupt or downright criminal. If McDonald's takes to adding arsenic to people's hamburgers rather than sawdust then not only is this activity corrupt, I would say it is outright criminal. Perhaps it is "bad business" and perhaps it is not. But it is definitely immoral and criminal to the same degree murder is. tim sevener whuxl!orb
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (03/22/85)
Tim, a few months ago I recall that you were terribly upset that Reagan was elected again. As I recall, your position was that the public had been manipulated into electing this monster. Please make up your mind. Either the democratic process works (in which case, why were you so upset about Reagan) or it doesn't. If it doesn't, how can you claim that it is possible to change it within the system? The militant anarchists have a point, you know. Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (03/23/85)
>sevener >If McDonald's takes to adding arsenic to people's >hamburgers rather than sawdust.... It's interesting to note that in the exchange between sevener and the libertarians, the libertarians all claim that murder etc is stupid ("bad business") whereas sevener thinks it's a good idea (ie, that people acting in their best self-interest (as in a marketplace) will do it in the absence of external forces. I'd have to agree with the libertarians on this one... --JoSH
mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (03/23/85)
In article <535@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >There certainly *is* a marketplace in government services: >it's called "elections". If you think the government is corrupt then >you have a choice every election: throw the rascals out of office. Tim, you know not of what you speak. In most elections, you have two choices: the democrats or the republicans. In other words, no choice at all. In some states, any marks on the ballot outside of the squares next to peoples names is illegal, and invalidates the ballot - so you can only vote for state approved people. Even in the states where you can vote for other parties, the demopublican control of the media is so great that most people haven't even *heard* of anything but the big two. If voting could change the system, it'd be illegal. Also, you've swallowed the myth that "the will of the majority" is in some way inherently "just". Does that need to be destroyed again? >It is simply ridiculous to claim that businesses are never either corrupt >or downright criminal. If McDonald's takes to adding arsenic to people's >hamburgers rather than sawdust then not only is this activity corrupt, >I would say it is outright criminal. I would also say criminal, even in the case of sawdust. The crime in question is fraud. Of course, a politician isn't expected to keep "campaign promises," so it isn't fraud. Maybe some brave soul would like to try sueing a politician for fraud when he failed to keep his campaign promises? <mike
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/26/85)
> >sevener > >If McDonald's takes to adding arsenic to people's > >hamburgers rather than sawdust.... > > It's interesting to note that in the exchange between sevener and > the libertarians, the libertarians all claim that murder etc is > stupid ("bad business") whereas sevener thinks it's a good idea > (ie, that people acting in their best self-interest (as in a marketplace) > will do it in the absence of external forces. > > I'd have to agree with the libertarians on this one... > > --JoSH Why don't you read "The Jungle" ? You might get some sense of what unrestrained and unregulated capitalism is capable of. tim sevener whuxl!orb
esk@wucs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (03/29/85)
In article <5324@utzoo.UUCP> laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes: >make up your mind. Either the democratic process works (in which >case, why were you [Sevener] so upset about Reagan) or it doesn't. If it Not that simple. It works, but badly. BUT -- and I know I'm repeating myself, but it doesn't seem to be sinking in -- all the others work even more badly. ("Absolutely the worst ... except for all the others".) Now, y'all think you can get the democrats' position through your thick heads? Iconoclastically, Paul V. Torek, wucs!wucec1!pvt1047
mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (03/31/85)
In article <862@wucs.UUCP> pvt1047@wucec1.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) writes: >Not that simple. It works, but badly. BUT -- and I know I'm repeating >myself, but it doesn't seem to be sinking in -- all the others work even >more badly. ("Absolutely the worst ... except for all the others".) Now, >y'all think you can get the democrats' position through your thick heads? > > Iconoclastically, > Paul V. Torek, wucs!wucec1!pvt1047 Gee, last time this came up, Sevener quoted that particular idiocy. I expected it to appear again, but not from Paul. The problem with "all the others" is that the number of possible organizations of power in a society is *much* larger than the total number of people in that society - and the more people, the greater the disparity in size. I'll concede that democracy is the best system that I know of that has been put into practice, that doesn't mean that: 1) all possible systems are worse than democracy; or 2) the representative democracy in the US is the best democracy. It's easy to describe a system that will work better in practice than democracy. Trouble is, all such systems (including democracy) suffer from the need of knowing which part of the populace (if any) is behaving rationally at some given point in time. <mike