- Capitalism and Alternatives -

thats nice

Posted by: Gee ( si ) on July 08, 1999 at 10:40:46:

In Reply to: Slightly bemused posted by Lars on July 07, 1999 at 16:34:01:

: LARS: Unchecked power is likely to result in disaster wherever it is found- governments, individuals or companies. Or any combination of these.

exactly and who is most difficult to check? The one that checks itself - government.

: LARS: SO does the support of the state absolve such companies?

it implicates both as you have said, morally as well.

: LARS: People's failure to hand over money to those in need counts as an omission and generally, as a matter of convention when a person fails to do something it is not considered to be a cause of what follows.

I am pleased you understand that Lars.

: But just because it is a convention, does not mean that we cannot find certain situations where reason demands that justice be done. ie where an omission can act as a cause.

when does that happen?

: LARS: So, this is no reason to do away with government. The ultimate guilt here lies with the shopkeepers, the governments being mere accessories.

They couldnt do it without government - people would shoot back.

: More violence, more death.

Assumption that left alone people become vicious killers? Well people all over are not watched day in day out - and they dont use those opportunities to commit crimes. Why? because they dont want to, rather than fear of prison.

: Government is a sign of civilised society. It is supposed to mediate between the citizens, to allow for a peaceful and beneficial coexistence.

Does it do that more successfully than if people decided among themselves how to associate do you think?

: That it does not do this at present is no reason to condemn government outright.

Any government that believes itself superior in mediating the free association of people is condemnable. A governemnt existing only to stop individuals from initiating force against eachother (a so called nightwatchman state) would seem the best form.

: But really Gee, i thgink i must have misunderstood you, for assuredly NOBODY would ever assert that we do not need governemnt regualtion of business. Ever since there has been business there has been a need of regualtion. That is plain as grass is green.

It may be in your eyes, that doesnt make it a 'truth'

: 1) That there should be no government regulation of companies

: 2) That there should be no governmental ownership of companies

they become the same thing. lets say your neighbour has a car but you can legislate what kind of things he does with it, and you add every year another raft of controls - well is it really his car now? youre mediating nearly every decision regarding it. there is one end point to legislation of of this sort and that is totalitarianism.

Follow Ups:


The Debating Room Post a Followup