KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (09/03/86)
[ It is interesting that the employment laws you decry were
enacted to redress the very greivances you say that their repeal
will solve...
No they weren't. They were enacted to protect the interests of
those already employed. Increasing the minimum wage, making it harder
to hire new people, causing salaries, layoff schedule, and promotion
schedules to based on seniority rather than merit, and of course
excluding some groups from employment consideration (for instance non-
union members, children, people over 65, and formerly blacks and
women) make things slightly better for those already employed at the
expense of making things much worse for those who are unemployed. And
at the expense of denying a fundamental freedom to all of us.
Anyone who decries unemployment has no business blaming it on
capitalism. The blame should be placed where it belongs - on the
anti-competitive anti-capitalistic laws that entrenched sepcial
interests managed to get congress to pass.
Also, is it necessarily good that a judge can levy fines based on
how much money he wants? "I need a new car. Fine is one
Ferrari." - CWM]
No, the judge's income would not depend on fines he levied. In any
case, the maximum fines would be established by the legislative branch
of the state or federal government, not by the judicial branch. Just
as is done now.
...Keith
[ Umm, how do equal employment laws (known to some as 'employment
quotas') favor those already employed? Its beginning to sound as if
your libertarian government would still be rather highly centralized,
with various bodies keeping an eye on each other. Where do you draw
the line? Can you please describe the actual structure of your
proposed governmental institutions? Rather than saying 'less of
this', and 'none of that' existing laws, I'd be interested in hearing
your actual plan. Different libertarians say different things, as
you'd expect, and I'd like to hear what you'd like to see. - CWM]
-------