From: cole@farmhand.rtp.dg.com (Bill Cole)
Subject: Re: Regulations
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 19:05:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC

Jason W Solinsky replies to Anthony Koumis:
|> |> If you are a worker and work at a company often the only safety guidelines that
|> |> are followed (if the company does follow them unlike that chicken factory
|> |> of last year that had locked fire doors) will be governemnt safety
|> |> regulations.  If you die from unsafe work conditions b/c there were no
|> |> "oppressive regulations" you sure aint more free. you are dead. :-(
|> 
|> YOU DO NOT HAVE TO WORK FOR ANYBODY. You choose what jobs you want to take. You
|> have the freedom not to take a job with safety hazards, and market pressures will
|> force companies to pay more to attract the same quantity and quality of workers
|> at less desireable jobs (i.e. dangerous ones)

You got the first part right.  The rest is idelogical twaddle.  There are a lot of
folks doing jobs that are inherently dangerous or made more dangerous by the
actions or inactions of the employer.  Take the fire in Hamlet, NC.  Nobody was
forced to work there.  But people did because it was the only job in town.  There
was no market pressure to change anything.  PEOPLE NEED JOBS.

|> |> How about all those car manufacturers now saying how safe they are b/c they
|> |> have airbags???? Perhaps if they didnt bother to fight for years - I am talking
|> |> years, airbags were supposed to become mandatory in about 1981 but then
|> |> Ronnie got elected -- they might have used the money to invest inbetter 
|> |> products
|> |> instead of fighting safety regulations.  Who wants unsafe cars that break down.
|> |> Perhaps if car manufacturers didnt waste so much  money on efforts like that
|> |> and paying their executives too much money, they owuldnt have to blame the
|> |> Japanese for their problems, fire American workers (instread of 
|> |> the excecutives) and send jobs to low wage countries.
|> 
|> 1) People don't buy cars that break down.

If you really believe this, you're too inexperienced to be out alone.  Jaguar made
atrocious cars for some years but people bought them and loved them (not enough
people, though).  All the American manufacturers made lousy cars for some time.
The Audi Fox was so bad you had to buy two (one for spare parts).

|> 2) It is part of the implied warranty when you buy a car that there are no
|> intrinsic design flaws that would cause cars to always break down. This is not
|> part of regulations, but rather basic elementary contractual law that was drawn
|> up around the same time that the founders of our country (libertarians all) wrote
|> the constitution.

And for years manufacturers got away with building and selling flawed products because
the government and the courts didn't realize that there was any implied contract.

|> 3) The workers were fired because it was not economical to continue employing them

Okay, so finish the thought.  Why/How did the workers become uneconomical?  Was it
their fault or the fault of the management (who kept their jobs)?

|> 4) If there were no business regulations, no money would have been spent on
|> pushing for and against legislation.

There would be no money spent to get rid of regulation; there would be lots of money
spent seeking regulation.

|> 5) The high salaries commanded by top executives are economically sound. A single
|> executive decision often alters the companies profits by more than the CEO gets
|> paid in an entire year. Given the relatively low costs (a couple of million is
|> nothing) versus the potential gain (Billions [at least in GM's case]) it is a
|> good decision for the board to make.

That's true enough.  But explain bonuses in years with massive losses.  Executive
compensation is not tied to performance or relative worth.  Nobody believes that
and you won't find enough people who would to overpopulate a phone booth.

[stuff deleted]

|> |> It isnt cthe gov't that necessarily poses the most threat to our freedom.  Do
|> |> you know that credit bureaus have reams and reams of info on most people and 
|> |> give it to potential employers and landlords.  Unfortunately, there is no
|> |> law saying the information has to be relevant for whatever the infomation is
|> |> needed for.  So they can pass on unsubstantiated rumours about you and you
|> |> probably wont find out.  There is some regulation on the matter but it
|> |> doesnt have that much bite to it.
|> 
|> Thare is nothing wrong with that. If somebody uses unsubstantiated rumors to
|> puplicly slader or libel you, you can sue. Other than that people should be able
|> to share information with other groups they trust.

That's the theory anyway.  Credit bureaus routinely take mis-information and pass
it along without attribution and without your knowledge.  Your neighbor can tell
them that you come home roaring drunk several nights a week and that gets put in
your credit history.  If it's not true, you have to prove it.

|> |> LIbertarians are saying they are for freedom so no more regulation.  Do
|> |> you really think unbridled economic competition is going to get us
|> |> more freedom and better choices.  NO WAY, the companies will get together
|> |> and form monopolies and give you bad products at high prices.
|> 
|> Whenever there is a bad product at a high price, there is room for a start-up
|> enterprise. I would be very happy if I saw a situation where all of the companies
|> werre producing a product poorly at high prices. I could get in there and make a
|> profit. (in fact the reason I'm here is because the advancement of technology
|> causes this to happen to ALL computer products over very short periods of time,
|> and I intend to take advantage of that fact.)

If that were true, we'd all be better off.  The fact is that some industries can
produce shoddy products because the cost of entry is too high for the entrepreneur
to fill a niche.

[more stuff deleted]

|> |> And look where deregulation got us with the airline industry.  Less
|> |> companies b/c they all merged or went bankrupt.
|> |> 
|> 
|> The airline industry, like the Railroad oligopoly before it, was made by the
|> government, and despite "deregulation" is still completely controlled by the
|> government.

You're half right.  Please provide evidence of your argument.

|> |> Less regulation=more freedom is a big fallacy propagated by those companies
|> |> who control and contribute to the GOP as well as the Dems but more likely
|> |> the GOP.  THey dont want to be regulated b/c they want to produce goods
|> |> cheaply (pay low wages, no safety standards) and badly (if we all produce
|> |> equally bad products it doesnt matter) that we will have to buy (since they
|> |> are all for protectionism and "America first") and they can make big
|> |> profits.
|> 
|> Less regulation is BY DEFINITION MORE FREEDOM. The fact that people get killed by
|> freedom does not change this fundamental truth.

More twaddle.  Government regulation isn't the only regulation we deal with.  Our
employers regulate us, our schools, our spouses, our modes of transportation, our
locations.  In fact, we're as free as we choose to be.

|> |> If you really think that Corporations have us at heart when they talk of less
|> |> regulation to make them more competitive. THink of Pinto.  Ford fought for
|> |> years against the standard that would have made them increase the impact 
|> |> withstanding of the PInto's rear fender.  They did this because they didint
|> |> want to spend the extra about five dollars per pinto to fix the problem.
|> |> And they didnt fix it on their own b/c they decided the cost of paying off
|> |> victims of rear-end collision accidents of Pintos was cheaper than spending
|> |> a few bucks to make the Pinto safer/
|> 
|> People often chose to pay less money and accept more danger. THAT IS THEIR
|> CHOICE. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO TELL SOMEBODY THAT HE/SHE MUST PAY SO THEY CAN BE
|> MORE SAFE. THIS IS THE NATURE OF FREEDOM.
|> 
|> The people who bought those cars had access to the multi-million dollar industry
|> that tests and examines cars to determine just how safe they are. They wanted to
|> save money, and in exchange they risked their lives a little. People should be
|> allowed to gamble.

Ford introduced seatbelts in 1956 without prodding from the government.  It was a
good idea.

Now, let's examine the underside of your statement.  If I chose to buy a Ford in '56
and chose not to wear a seltbelt and were killed in an accident where that seatbelt
may have saved my life, is there liability?  You hit my car and I died; the accident
was clearly your fault but I wouldn't have been killed had I been wearing the
seatbelt.  Are you responsible?  No.  I committed suicide.

Believe it or not, Jason, I'm a lifelong Republican and I remember many of your
statements coming from my own mouth.  Keep fightin', though.

/Bill
To do right, love kindness & walk humbly