From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Regulations
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 04:00:27 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.063113.27772@athena.mit.edu> solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky) writes:
>In article <ru1q2INNhs7@agate.berkeley.edu>, jorourke@ocf.berkeley.edu (Jason O'Rourke) writes:
>|> 1) "If it is unsafe, work for someone else."
>
>If you can't find any work, then move. Regulation has caused people to
>concentrate into things called cities, while the government pays people NOT to
>use land in many parts of the country. Have the government stop paying people not
>to grow stuff and use that money to resettle people from the cities that
>regulation made in the first place. Did you know that in Texas, there is enough
>room for all 5 Billion people in this world to live, in a healthy manner raising
>enough food to support themselves? Throughout most of human history, people have
>tried to spread themselves out. It is only since all this regulation was
>introduced that people moved into the cities. If people can't find work in a
>given place, that's economics telling them that they should move elsewhere.

People have been concentrating in cities since the Industrial Revolution
began, the days of laissez-faire.  Government intervention has in fact
caused people to move out of cities (the Highway Act allowed suburbs
to be possible.  I suppose tax breaks for mortgages, etc., though I'm
not as clear on the dates for this)  Arguably, technology will allow
us to become even more dispersed, with faxes, modems, etc.

I'd like to see documentation about your claims for Texas.  I'll admit
that you can stuff that many people there (you can probably do it in
a much smaller region, say Long Island), but can you grow the food?

I suppose you can move to better economic climes.  Folks from Mexico
do it all the time, after all.  However, what kind of jobs do they
work at?  Are they safe, rewarding jobs?  Would you do it?

>  
>|> 2) "Sue if someone slanders you."
>
>Without all the legislation this would never be the case. A plaintiff and
>defendant could show up for the court with all of the pertinant documents and
>witnesses (no attorneys). A judge or panel of judges could read each person's
>claims of what happened, and then get verification from the other people and
>their witnesses and documents. The whole thing for most civil casses would take
>far less than a day, and not more than a couple fo weeks for the most impossibly
>complicated ones. The loser could pay costs which would be far less than they are
>today. Most of the costs of the legal system involve formalities and paperwork.
>Most of the rest involve paying lawyers.

Worse and worse.  I know that the original argument was with libel.
Let's expand it a little.  Say, with the big tobacco companies and
the law suits they've successfully fought off.  They have the money
to throw a blizzard of facts at you.  Do you stand a chance?  Do you
have the money to do all the fact finding yourself?  Go further.  Take
a civil suit involving pillars of the community.  Who would the jury
tend to believe, even with witnesses.  The Little Guy doesn't have a prayer.
The average citizen isn't trained to take apart testimony and look for 
contradictions in it.

>
>|> 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?
>
>For a well-managed start-up to produce a single line of cars, entry costs can be
>as low as $100-200 million.

You got this in pocket, eh?  Anti-trust is kinda important.  Look
at how the Rail Barrons crushed opposition.

>|> Local phone companies regulated in exchange for a captive market.  Near 
>|> monopolies should be treated the same.
>
>Local phone companies are a government made monopoly.

Originally because it had to be.  It cost too much back then to invest
in the infrastructure (phone lines, etc.) for a single company to
afford.  I'm not sure about the case now.  With all the infrastructure
put in by cable companies, and cellular phones, it's different today.
Competition is always good.  Look at the US phone system after
the breakup of AT&T, and compare it with any country's.

> 
>|> 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?
>
>Do not forget that the companies are liable for violating the implied warranty
>that the car will transport people from one place to another using roads without
>endangering the lives of its occupants or thos of other cars. This liability
>would force car makers to shape up, or go broke, which without the protection of
>corporations would mean that they lose EVERYTHING. (note that in a trully free
>economy, bankruptcy insurance would probabally become a common item, with people
>inssuring themselves against a loss by their company.)

This goes back to how effectively you can sue the company.
If they can summon lots of legal firepower, or simply bury you
under a blizzard of facts and speculation (as in your lawyer-less
model), can the Little Guy win?

>
>|> 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?
>
>Agencies would develope that would certify the effectiveness of products. If
>people don't want to buy products that have gone through the trouble of being
>certified, let the buyer be ware.

Arguably true, though you might wind up with lots of dead people by
the time that happened.  And what about new industries?


>
>Jason W. Solinsky