Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Raving a bit, aren't we?
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 9 Oct 92 22:32:19 EST
 <1as1f6INN4ss@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu> <1992Oct6.134037.4575@desire.wright.edu> <1b1l3lINNclb@agate.berkeley.edu>
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.
Summary: Wherein false conclusions lead to erroneous postulations

In article <1b1l3lINNclb@agate.berkeley.edu>, lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
> In article <1992Oct6.134037.4575@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> 
> In an earlier posting, His Modest Stupendous Man blamed the North
> Carolina chicken-plant fire on the existence of OSHA, or at least,
> that's what he implied.

	No, it's not.  The pertinent line is "what organization was supposed to
inspect that Carolina chicken plant?".  How you get blaming the fire on the
existence of OSHA is a real stretch.

> One of the great paradoxes of "Libertarianism" is that the workers who
> are allegedly being wounded by OSHA's existence never call for its
> abolition. Instead they call for its expansion and strengthening.

	The people who are being taxed to death call for more government.  They
don't know any better.  The media calls the 80s a disaster and says "regulation
would fix everything", so the people take the path of least resistance.  "Yeah,
that's right."  At least enough people to get Clinton's and Bush's elected.

> Meanwhile the businesses who are supposedly escaping rigorous
> competition through the existence of agenicies like OSHA have
> historically opposed them bitterly.

	Inefficient, used for vendettas, etc.  Notice that they're not opposed
to workplace safety (after all, dead workers don't produce very much), just
against travesties like OSHA.

> How is it that the agents who are supposed to act rationally to perfect
> the Libertarian free market can be so deluded? A most difficult question
> for Libertarians! In the same vein, Arrogant Man points out that there
> are independent groups like
> 
>>	As far as private/consumer groups, there are:
> 
> [most of list deleted]
>>	Consumer's Union
> 
>>	The problem isn't that these kind of groups don't work, rather the
>>government prohibits these types of groups in certain areas!  They don't want
>>people to see how really bad the EPA, OSHA, VA, etc are!
> 
> 1. I don't know any doctrine of law that would require manufacturers to
> open their plants to a Consumers Union inspection team. I *do* know

	Consumer's Union does product analysis.  Some of that is safety, but
since OSHA exists, it is used as a scapegoat/target of funds.  The government
controls it, so any effort to set up "Plant Inspectors R Us" would most likely
be met with federal agents and arrest warrants for harrasment.
	Whether or not plants said "yeah, great idea, I can now advertise
'Passes Plant Inspectors R Us most stringent tests!'.

> doctrines of law that would require manufacturers to open their plants
> to a GOVERNMENT inspection team. That's one difference. (Does the govt
> PROHIBIT a manufacturer from having an outside group monitor safety as
> well as OSHA? Of course not, a fantasy argument.)

	Tell you what, try to set up a service that takes home drunk people for
free from bars.  Now make sure you have bail money.  (Yes, the government says
that's illegal.)
	OSAH is frequently bought off, or runs inadequate inspections.  They're
not accountable to anyone except themselves.  One or two people get fired, and
it's back to standard operating procedures.
	If OSHA is such a great protector of workers, why did the chicken plant
not fear an inspection?

> 2. But to return to the Great Paradox, Consumers Union (the publisher of
> Consumer Reports) has always advocated MORE government protections, more
> safety laws, more government inspectors, and so on. Heck, one of its two
> founders was a real live Socialist. How could the Libertarians trust
> such a "deluded" group with helping to police the free market!?

	Of course consumer's union advocates more government.  That is their
solution.  Not everyone must lock-step into the same thought mode.  CU
frequently leans towards big government, but that doesn't invalidate the
premise that private groups can be effective monitoring agencies.

> Meanwhile, business groups were outraged at the founding of Consumers
> Union. They called it un-American and Communist and tried to shut it
> down. (In fact, CU was set up as a membership organization with _CR_
> allegedly restricted to its membership partly to avoid legal hurdles set
> up by business.) This seems contrary to the points alleged by Stupendous,
> but is a verifiable fact.

	Only if I had said all businesses are pristine.  Obviously they are
not.  They key is to get effective monitoring, so consumers can make informed
choices.  OSHA doesn't provide that.
	Once businesses see that workers/consumers will avoid their products
and plants in favor of safer environments, previously ignored external costs
will become a mandatory part of doing business.

> Libertartian theory probably has an even worse record for historicity than
> Marxist-Leninism.

	Open your eyes, read what is there (instead of what you want to see)
and admit when you are wrong.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!