Re: A Libertine Question (fwd)

[Jim Choate <ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com>]

Forwarded message:

> Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 22:05:06 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>
> Subject: Re: A Libertine Question (fwd)
> 
> > And any insurance company with a whit of sense would charge you rates so
> > high that your much touted small vendors and many of the medium sized
> > vendors currently in business would not exist. You think governments are
> > bad? Wait till you see a bunch of bean counters racing a profit margin. In
> > such a situation we wouldn't even have the opportunity for input into the
> > system via constitutions, charters, and votes. Just imagine how much support
> > a Japanese insurance company would provide its clients in regards to the
> > current epidemic in Japan, absolutely none because it is better the little
> > vendor go out of business than the insurance company.
> 
> Apparently Jim does not understand that the "race for profit 
> margin" is what LOWERS the prices of goods and services.  You 
> might check out HUMAN ACTION by von Mises.  Anyway, as I said in 
> my previous post.

Really? Then would you mind explaining why costs rise over time instead of
going down? Compare the cost of almost anything over time and what happens?
The price goes up. Insurance has become involved in the medical industry,
what happened? The cost has gone through the roof. The airplane industry was
deregulated in the late 70's, what happened? The price of a ticket went up
and more and more airlines went out of business because of lagging sales. In
many states (such as Texas) insurance was made mandatory, what happened? The
cost of automobile insurance went up.  The telephone companies were broken
up and 'privatized' in the 80's and what happened? The cost of phone service
has gone up and the rate of new service introduction has gone down. In
almost any case you care to mention where a monopoly or near-monopoly market
exists and is deregulated the cost of operation has gone up.

> > > It would be nice if businesses were offered that choice
> 
> I'm confident that the market solution would be far cheaper and
> less violent they injecting the coercive state apparatus into a
> volutary transactions between PEOPLE.

If this is so then by your own argument, business are operated by people
therefor they are people, the government should conform to this model since
it is operated by people also (by your argument). Therefore governments have
rights (clearly incorrect). Governments have duties and responsibilities,
under our Constitution the government is given no right. As a matter of fact
if there is a disagreement or unclear point the 10th says specificaly that
the government does not get to resolve it but rather the states or the
people. Clearly the founding fathers were drawing a distinction between the
people operating a system and the system itself.

> > I own 2 businesses...none are equivalent to my person. 
> 
> So?  They are owned and operated by people.

Yes, but they are not people any more than my ownership and operation of my
motor vehicle makes it a person. Is your contention that because I own and
operate a computer it should be given rights?

This is sorta funny, I can see it now...

"Your honor we would like to call Mr. Choate's 1985 Mustang to the stand to
give testimony."

"Mr. Choate's 1986 Mustang, you have been found guilty of speeding and
reckless driving."

Hey, come to think of it, this would make a great defence for many things.

"But your honor, my automobile has rights and is considered a person,
therefore you can't hold me responsible for running over those six nuns and
two infants. I was simply along for the ride. The only reason that I was in
the vehicle was that I was afraid to open the door and jump at 120 MPH."

Yup, I definately like where this is going...

I can see a cop reading my computer it's Miranda and waiting till Hell
freezes over for a positive responce.

Just think, all those dead cars...er persons...in the auto...er
people-crusher... We should bring those monsters up on charges for killing
people. Talk about mass murder.

> > Businesses are a system of rules and procedures...
> 
> Made and enforced by PEOPLE.  Jim is begging the question.

Which question would that be? "Should businesses be considered people with
the same rights and priviliges?" If so then it is clearly a negative answer.
The Constitution does not accept that premise and the law does not accept
that premise. If a business is found guilty of wrong doing do they put it in
jail? No, they put the persons involved in jail. Clearly the courts are
drawing a distinction between a system and those who operate it. Does the
constitution ever mention business or commercial enterprise in equality with
persons? Does this equality mean that I need to go the courthouse and get a
DBA in order to legaly exist in Texas as a business must?

Consider my dog, Reef, she is owned and operated by a person (I feed her,
walk her, clean up her messes, teach her tricks, even kill her if I choose -
though I can't be cruel to her) does this mean she is a person?

Sounds like the original proposition, that businesses should be awarded the
same rights as people because they are owned and operated by people, is a
reduction to absurtity.

> > Would you seriously give my dog a vote?
> 
> Gee, I don't know your dog.  His understanding of economics
> couldn't be much more rudimentary.  (Okay, it was a cheap
> shot, but it was a silly question.)

If I may, I would like to use a quote from the Transformers movie,

"You obviously don't understand the situation then."

Tata.

                                                Jim Choate