gazit@lear.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (10/08/89)
In article <1989Sep30.185858.22432@rpi.edu> (Keith D. Weiner) writes: >#As a society we decided to put limits on companies and force them to >If ever there was a more blatant example of collectivism, I would be hard >pressed to find it. "society"? "we"? "force"? Sounds like the general idea >is that individuals do not have the "right" to live life for themselves, I talked about *companies*. When these companies cut the rights of the individuals, these individuals fight back. Take a look in California's latest voters' revolt (against the insurance companies) if you need an example from my universe. >assumption about your argument is not correct, then please explain to me the >word "force" and what ends would justify such means. Your example of the >anti-trust laws is incorrect. Companies may NOT hire the best, because they >must worry about quotas. Try to talk with women who were in the job market before 1964. They were told that they would not be hired because they were *women*. Period. I agree that the rights of the companies were hurt by the EEO, that's the price they pay for their discriminatory practices. >But similarly, companies did not compete (doesn't >competition mean that all competitors are FREE to act?) and cannot compete >under duress. The anti-trust laws are the most disasterous form of gov't >control and of collectivism that exist in the US so far. Let see. Before the anti trust all the railroad companies decided between themselves about a fixed price and shared the profit by an agreed in advance plan (yes, I know that Ayn Rand described a situation where the bad guys tried to loot the good guys. I prefer to talk about reality). *Big* businesses could get a reduction, and so the small and developing companies helped to finance the giant trusts (large customers && the railroads trusts). The law said that every company should *publish* a price table and follow this table with *all* customers. They lost some money, and the privacy of their prices was hurt, and they did not like it. As far as I concern these fat companies can take their businesses to some other place, I'll not be too sorry. >But such arguments abrogate the entire concept of individual rights. What *individual* right did I abrogate? >To sit here and argue >the "practical" of whether a gun should be used for this or that range-of-the- >moment practical consideration, is to concede that individual rights do not >exist, and that the purpose of the gov't is to do whatever any majority thinks >will benefit it for any immediate moment. Think about the profound difference >between the two. The *individual* rights are protected by the Constitution. The rights of companies to harass the public and/or the competitors in order to maximize their profit are not protected. >"An elective tyranny is NOT what we fought this war for." - T Jefferson Do you prefer a non-elective tyranny by all the trust's chairmen? As far as I'm concerned they can move to Atlantis and wait for the world to break down. What they would see is a lot of small companies that are poor enough to try to develop the best product, and don't have enough money to discriminate. Homework assignment: What are the differences between Hank Rearden and A. Carnegie? Which one of them is a more realistic character, and why? Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu he was jeopardizing his traditional rights of freedom and independence by daring to use them --- Milo to Yossarian