From: jorourke@ocf.berkeley.edu (Jason O'Rourke)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Regulations
Date: 8 Apr 1992 05:54:10 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: avalanche.berkeley.edu

Much has been said against regulation.  So I give reasons that it is needed.

1) "If it is unsafe, work for someone else."

Fine, if you can.  Just remember that in recessions people tend to be
out of work, and certainly can't afford to just leave any job.  Since 
The Jungle has been mentioned, just remember what conditions were like.
Was there other work for Jurgis?  

2) "Sue if someone slanders you."

Again, only works if you can REALLY afford to.  A cicil suit takes time,
attorney costs that aren't often returnable.  Plus, it is very hard to prove
any kind of malice in these slander suits.  As for credit reports, you often
do not know something is amiss until you are denied credit.  My mother was 
unable to be on the deed for the house because she was declared in default 
of her student loan (never mind that she was still in school).  If the 
gov't doesn't force it, very often these first two quotes are only valid
for the upper middle class and above.

3) GM laying off workers, still paying high salaries to execs.  I think it
is more than fair to criticize this when you consider we had to save 
Crystler only a decade ago.  And if they want trade protection that costs
the consumer, they should shape up a bit.  

4) "If an oligopoly is charging a lot for junk, someone will enter the market"

Depends on the product.  I doubt Jason is capable of starting his own car
company, for instance.  When the startup costs are in the billions, or the
few conspire to prevent entry, how can it be done?
Local phone companies regulated in exchange for a captive market.  Near 
monopolies should be treated the same.

5) "Everyone should know the pinto is a death trap.  If they are so ignorant,
or so cheap, tough."

Should we allow admitted death mobiles on the road?  Just because those of 
us who are smart enough and/or well enough off to be in college, or a 
company with net access, doesn't mean that all of the country should be
so well informed.  Should a recent immigrant lose his life because he
didn't read Consumer Reports?  
And should someone have to buy a tin can because he can afford nothing 
better?  It isn't always an expensive task to make something safe.
In the 19th century, many people went around selling magic elixers that 
would cure all diseases.  Was that a good thing, because OBVIOUSLY ALL
OF US know that it is just alcohol and favors?

While not evident in all my beliefs, there is certainly a liberal background
in all I have said.  The government does have a duty to protect those
who can't do it themself.  And that is completely opposite to the 
Libertarian Party.

jason o'rourke

PS: I can never let those Carter remarks slide.  I ask you to note that
Reagan got a lot of his success by spending a hell of a lot of money, and
that having Iran and Iraq overproducing oil for their war during his 
terms certainly helped.  Also, in the first 4 years, he accomplished 
NOTHING economically; rather the nation worsened and then by '84 was
back to where he started.  

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:944 talk.politics.misc:18282