From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Regulations
Date: 12 Apr 92 05:15:18 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Apr11.111637.23868@athena.mit.edu> solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky) writes:
>
>Freedom does not equal competition, the coexistence of freedom and limited
>resources cause competition. Freedom is being able to do whatever you want to.
>Obviously, complete freedom for one individual results in the taking away of
>the freedom of other individuals. Laws should only be made when there exists an
>action that a person can take which would limit the freedom of another person,
>and there is avenue through which the wronged party can pursue just compensation.

A point of agreement, I suppose.  And there was much rejoicing....

>
>To site the three examples given in the last two posts:
>
>  If we had no anti-trust laws, I could do everything I can do now. Companies
>  would have more freedom.

But, if companies have more freedom, can't they, say, form a cartel
and deny you your freedom to choose goods and services?  Tell me if
this isn't obvious.

>
>  If we had no worker safety codes, workers would be able to do everything that
>  they are able to do now. Employers would have more freedom.

Oh, let me first apologize to most of the libertarians on the net.
Most have a deep concern for the welfare of individuals.  My
statement about a lack of caring was caused by a deep impatience
with this misanthropic zeal in deregulation.  To blindly claim
that all regulation is evil (as Mr. Solinsky does) is as wrong
as a claim that all regulation is good.  A previous poster served
to remind me that we must look at all our legislation with some
degree of skepticism.

Now, one thing that may be overlooked in all this is that workers
tend to have only a single shot at their accident, so to speak.
If they get injured on the job (through no fault of their own),
that's it.  Monetary claims on a lost limb will not re-attach it
to your body.  A lawsuit will not bring back a dead relative.

You can still sue for damages, of course.  But then, the company
can fight you tooth and nail.  You may not see any compensation
until well after you've ceased to be able to enjoy it.  This is
the case with a lung cancer victim suing one of the tobacco companies.
She's dead.  The company may even declare bankruptcy under the weight
of the lawsuits.  This is the case with asbestos manufacturers.

>
>  If we had no health codes in restaurants, I would still be able to do everything
>  I can do now. The restaurant owners and would have more freedom.

See above.  You walk into a new restaurant.  You get sick, and die (a
bit extreme).  Your dead.  What can you do?  I'm sure not going to
experiment with new places.

>
>People keep on mentioning death as taking away from freedom. DEATH IS PART OF
>FREEDOM. If I put you in a cage and fed you meals, you wouldn't have to worry
>about death, but you would lack all freedom. Death is a natural thing. The more
>choices you make in life, the more chances you will have to make a decision that
>leads to your death. You can take away people's ability to decide, to give them a
>better chance at staying alive, but I don't think that you should have the right
>to take away that choice. I think that THEY should choose wether or not to take
>risks.

You seem to have this Sartrean notion of death as some existential
choice.  Free will.  You can choose suicide.  I suppose.

We're arguing that death may result THROUGH NO FAULT OF YOUR OWN.
Is it your fault if a crane topples on your car, while you're
sitting in it?  You're dead.  Your relatives can sue.  Little good
that'll do you.  Botullism in your tuna fish?  Same thing.
How about (on a less lethal note) AT&T, Sprint & MCI getting together
and saying, hmm, let's jack up the phone rates.  No one's stopping us.
Is it my choice to pay extortion for services?  
Is this the type of freedom you keep repeating like a mantra?