From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: The World
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 01:25:11 GMT


From: pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt)
>bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>: 
>: >When
>: >those that are held accountable for their actions are made to give
>: >proper restitution, there will likely be much less lawsuits. 
>: 
>: Ok, again, HOW will they be held accountable? By what force of law or
>: nature or ???
>
>This is a valid function of government.

But it seems to also be a function of current govt that libertarians
(case by case) have a lot of problems with. Particularly when they're
held accountable in advance (e.g. regulatory functions.)

>: And what power would arbitrators have to enforce decisions? Do you
>: think unscrupulous people (and there are a helluva lot of them) will
>: just voluntarily do what arbitrators decide???
>
>Arbitrators are brought in when both sides sign a contract saying they
>will abide by the arbitrators decision.  So they operate off of the same
>power that any party operates from that signs a contract.

That's right, they work where both parties voluntarily submit to them.
In my experience (I am a businessman), that works, but only in a small
minority of disuptes (don't get me wrong, where it works it works
well, but unfortunately too many disputes are far too contentious for
that sort of thing.)

>: Let me tell you something that perhaps you don't know: If you win a
>: settlement against an unscrupulous person, not even a horribly
>: unscrupulous person, just some pissy landlord or whatever, your next
>: adventure will be collecting. Go ask an experienced lawyer what it
>: takes to collect on a judgement if the other party just kinda ignores
>: the judgement. IT'S A PAIN IN THE ASS, at best. In fact, it's not hard
>: for a determined jerk to make it more expensive to collect than is to
>: be collected! What a deal!
>
>This can occur in any system.  Is there a system that fixes this
>problem?

At least things like regulation of what is considered minimum hygienic
conditions if you claim that something is being rented as an apartment
for humans gives the tenant back some leverage in a dispute (and of
course often settles it right there since many landlords don't want to
take the chance of being fined for egregious violations, it's cheaper
to fix things, which is sort of the point.)

I think what a lot of libertarianism loses sight of is that many of
these mechanisms are there precisely because the "game" was unfair,
there was some severe imbalance, so some regulation was an attempt to
rebalance the market relationship. Ok, sometimes that's not perfect,
but at least acknowledge that this is very often the goal. To avoid
contentiousness and let people spend their time more productively than
arguing whether a bathroom has to be put back into reasonable repair
in 1 day or 10 or 30.

>	People Are No Good (PANG) therefore all people should be 
>		controlled by government.

But I'd stop you right there, no one (in this country) draws that
conclusion. People who behave reasonably (in most situations), and I
mean reasonable by common standards not govt standards (except
inasmuch as they overlap) generally don't feel "controlled" by govt
any more than I feel the govt "controls" me because they forbid/punish
rape or murder or whatever. It's a bit of a leap up there.

>	This makes the government more powerful than the people.
>	But people make up the government.
>	People that are no good can get into office.
>	Those in office that are no good can do more harm because they
>		are more powerful than the people they rule.

Well, I suppose if one decides to take that kind of cynical and
despairing attitude towards govt. The same however can be said for
corporations:

	People need jobs and the products corporations produce,
	This makes corporations more powerful than people.
	But people make up corporations.
	People that are no good can run corporations.
	Those in those jobs that are no good can do more harm
	because they are more powerful than the people who rely on them.

So? Is that really an unreasonable turn of the table?

It's a problem, but it's in no way peculiar to the govt. It's going to
happen wherever there is a concentration of responsibility (and,
hence, power), at least potentially.

>The libertarian solution is to hold government to the same standards
>that you hold individual citizens to.  This reduces the power of
>government to the point where a person that is no good cannot benefit by
>using the governments power.

That doesn't follow. Holding them to the standards (of behavior I
presume) is perfectly reasonable. But that doesn't reduce their power,
no more than you can reduce the power a parent has over their child.

We are all always (or at least very often) dependant on the sheer good
will of someone else. My cab driver can run us off a cliff, someone
behind the wheel of a car can kill me when I cross in front of them,
the restaurant can serve me rotten food, etc. I'm not sure the answer
to that is to forbid cab drivers to have cabs, drivers to have cars,
and restaurants to serve food.

>Another experiment:  Who were the biggest mass murderers in history?  If
>you include governmental leaders, how do the number of victims that they
>killed compare to the number of an individual or gang?

That doesn't speak for (relative) anarchy, and if you don't have
anarchy but there really is an organized thing (we'll call it the govt
for sake of discussion) that doesn't make me feel particularly more
safe, even if we only gave them the guns etc to enforce contracts.

>(As a side note:  people that are no good will be naturally drawn to a
>more powerful government because they can personally gain from the
>power.)

And not people with an urge to do good?


-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD