From: Michael S. Lorrey (retroman@turbont.net)
Date: Wed Sep 06 2000 - 16:09:33 MDT
Paul Hughes wrote:
>
> hal@finney.org wrote:
>
> > I don't take Paul's critique to be a call for more government programs.
> > Most of what he (and others in the thread) criticizes IS government.
> > The DMCA is a government law.
>
> Thanks for clarifying the issue and hopefully getting this thread back on
> track.
>
> > Although Paul mostly points at big business as being the root cause,
> > obviously this is not the case because states that have eliminated big
> > business have at least as much trouble with corruption and unfairness.
>
> No, I don't see big business as the root cause. The problem I see is a lack
> of free-market ideas and/or constraints that would prevent the top 50% of the
> wealthy from ruling over the bottom 50%.
Ok, How are you measuring your percentages? I'm under the impression that the
top 5% own 50% of everything, and the top 50% own 90% of everything already.
What sort of private mechanisms would prevent the disowned 50% from being pushed
around and abused?
The principle that rights, morals, and ethics are for sale does work here. If a
society can afford to free its slaves, it generally will. If the average family
has ten kids, that society can afford to see more of its youth killed in warfare
than a society where the average family has one or two kids. Its not an accident
that as family size decreased, the rationale for the draft fell by the wayside,
as families with fewer kids could not emotionally afford to lose them to combat
as previous generations had. With the Cold War in the 50's, national security
was more valuable than workplace safety, and as a result, many nuclear workers
were exposed and the evidence hidden in secrecy.
Perhaps my memory is incorrect, but as I recall Paul, you've stated your own
beleif in Mao's maxim that 'justice comes from the barrel of a gun'. I fail to
see how the alternative, that justice comes from a wallet, could possibly be
worse in any way. It is, IMHO, far better, rather.
Current day activism, like rtmark, ruckus, etc. is in fact a free-market
solution to government enforcement. An informed population of consumers is
necessary for activism of any kind to be effective. Dolphin safe tuna would not
have resulted unless everyday people actually cared about dolphins. Its the
upper classes that actually practice a far higher level of ethical consumerism
than the lower classes do. Poor people don't recycle. They don't do 'adopt a
highway' unless its part of the sentencing for their criminal conviction. They
can't afford to take the day off to go protest. The only activism that poor
people engage in is that which impacts them directly, i.e. union strikes or
local issues. In a more free market scenario, activists would operate consumer
awareness sites (like Consumer Reports from Consumers Union)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:30:49 MST