RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone(fwd)

[Petro <petro@playboy.com>]

At 7:05 PM -0500 11/11/98, Jim Choate wrote:
>Forwarded message:
>> 	So leaders should be able to do whatever they want within their own
>> borders w/out the possibility of being held responsible for what they do to
>> citizens of other countries who just happen to be visiting?
>
>Absolutely. It's what is meant by indipendent nation. It's between the leaders
                                     ^^^
	Freudian slip? (no, I am not harrassing you about spelling, I don't
have the moral authority on that point.

>and the citizens.
>
>> 	What about rule by law?
>
>What about it? I don't believe in one world governments, it's a bad idea.
>Within the confines of a given country there should be a rule of law, that
>rule should not necessarily be the same as any other country. And other
>countries should most definitely NOT have a say in it.

	There is an expectation that when one travels, one is protected by
certain laws, at least the laws of the country that one is traveling to.

	There are also certain types of crimes that are so morally
reprehensible that to allow them to continue is not possible.

	Or are you willing to go on record as stating that what Stalin did
to the Jews (or Hitler for that matter) was acceptable, since we shouldn't
have a say in their laws?

>Do you want Germany having a say in our laws (for example)?

	They do already, it's called international trade.

	Also, if I were a Catholic in a death camp because Jesse Helms
ramed thru legislation blaming the Y2K bug on the Holy C, I'd hope someone
would intervine.

>> 	That was not the point, the point was about black market goods.
>No, the point was about freedom of choice.

	My comments were in regard to black market goods.

>
>> 	So then you admit you were lying about the deaths and blindness
>> being the cause of regulation, since you claimed it happend in the late
>> 1800's & early  1900's, but the regualtion and taxing went all the way back
>> to the middle ages?
>
>Taxing went on, the regulation of alcohol production didn't occur in this
>country until after the Civil War. Taxing alcohol is a whole different issue
>than regulating the quality and methods of production, and is most certainly
>not equivalent to regulations on where it might be sold and under what
>conditions.

	But you claimed it started in the early 1900's in response to
deaths and blindness.

>> prevents businesses from using the Press to manipulate the
>> government into doing something about a problem that doesn't exist.
>
>No it doesn't. The press is a business, and if you don't think they don't
>try to manipulate more than the government you're in for a surprise. There
>are cases of the press being manipulated because of the impact of certain
>story presentation lines on their income.

	It prevents the press from manipulating the government because
there ISN'T ONE, or if there is (in the case of extreme
libertarian/minarchist) it is so restricted and powerless it can't do
anything execpt try to gather more power.

	Yes, businesses can manipulate the press, and do-gooders can always
start their own press and fight back.

>> >whistle-blowers and 'social do-gooders' to get their message out (unless
>> >they're well heeled and don't mind loosing it all in the process).
>> 	That is already/still the case. You piss off the wrong people, you
>> die.
>
>Actualy not, there are a variety of whistle-blower laws on the book at every
>level. Also the number of whistle-blowers who are killed currently are

	Yeah, and there are laws against Drug Dealing which work real well.

>pretty small (name 3). A lot of them loose the jobs they blew the whistle on

	I wanna say Karen something or other as one case--Silkwood?

	Point still holds, you speak out, you get in trouble, legal or no.
Laws don't prevent things from happening, they simply give society the
moral authority to say "We Warned You, Now Off With His Head" or some such.

	When was the last time you _didn't_ kill someone just because it is
illegal? It's only been like twice in my life. Well, and another time a
buddy took the gun out of my hands.

>but that is many cases is to be expected (after all if the issue is important
>enough the business will cease to exist).

	It's expected, but illegal?

>> 	It INHERENTLY recognizes it, and inherently limits it.
>
>No it doesn't, it does not in any way prevent abuse and further provides no
>mechanism for the restitution or correction of that abuse.

	It prevents government abuse, it prevents systemic abuse of power
and authority.

	It also makes it easier to get people to resist abuse & to fight
back, since the abuse isn't built in, nor do the abusers have any sort of
"authority" to fall back on.

>> 	No one has the power.
>> 	THAT'S THE POINT.
>No, the point is that whoever is the most ruthless will get ahead. If you

	Which is different from now HOW?

	Isn't Billy Gates one of your poster boys for being ruthless? Isn't
he so far head of the rest of us that he could be in court for the rest of
his life and not spend everything?

	Yeah, the current system really prevents the ruthless from getting
ahead.


>> 	Some agendas can't be pushed thru business, or at least not the
>> same way.
>
>Such as? Greed and profit always can be pushed through business, it's what
>they do.

	Damn, had one when I wrote that. Shit should have sited it. It
basically fell into "at least not the same way".

	Greed is not an agenda, it is an emotion, Profit is an agenda.

>> 	If I got them legally, they were a legal commodity, if I dispose of
>> them legally, they move from the "white" market, to the "black" market.
>Which requires that yot mislead the doctor as to why you want them.

	No it doesn't. I just showed you an example of one way to not
mis-lead the doctor (I fully inteneded on taken the pills, I just didn't
like them) a doctor and still get the meds.

>> 	The fact that not everything on the black market was stolen ISN'T
>> the point, the point is that there can be things on the black market that
>> aren't stolen, and aren't inherently illegal (tomatoes, vicadan, alcohol)
>> but are still part of the black market because of the nature of the market
>> and the legal system.
>Why would anyone buy a commenly available item on the black market when they
>could go to the corner store and purchase it? They won't. People who are

	You can sometimes find people in Chicago selling cigerattes out of
the trunks of their car. Allegedly this were purchased in a state (Indiana
or Michigan) with lower taxes, and carried across state lines (which is
illegal, if done for purpose of sale) to be sold for less than taxed
cigarettes here.

	I can't speak more to this specifically since I don't know any more.

>involved in the black market are there for profit. If they go down to the
>store and buy say tomatoes at $2/lb. whey would they sell them to you at
>$1.75/lb? They wouldn't. The alcohol and cigarettes you buy on the black
>market lack tax stamps are have bogus stamps. Why? Becuase the cost is much
>lower without the added tax and legitimate distribution expenses.

	Sometimes they don't bother with the stamps. This also doesn't mean
that the product is stolen, it could simply be purchased in bulk in a lower
cost market & transported.

	Kinda like Blue Jeans in the USSR.

>> 	FUCKING BULLSHIT. YOu JUST brought introduced your thesis that even
>> if most stuff isn't actually stolen, then it is bought with money gained by
>> theft in your last post on this issue.
>
> Before that you were maintaining
>> that everything on the black market had to be stolen, and in fact this
>
>No, go back - I never said that. I have continously said that the majority
>of items on the black market are related to a stolen service or product.
>I stand by that statement.

You said:
>Actualy a black market is usualy goods gotten through theft or other illegal
>means, not necessarily anything related to how or what is sold. If you don't
>corrupt free-market to include legitimizing theft as a viable market
>strategy then yes, you can in fact have a black market in a free-market.

	Now, I took that to mean "The black market is usually trade in
goods aquired thru theft or other illegal means", rather than "the black
market is usually comprised of goods related to a stolen service, or
product, or are paid for by money aquired the same way", this was in
response to a query were I said:

	Assuming your definition of "free market" is "a market without
regulation", you can't have a black market in a free market since a black
market is trade in violation of regulations.

	In other words, a Black market is when you trade either illegal
goods illegally, or legal goods illegally.

	If there are no illegal goods, and there is no regulations limiting
trading, then the black market cannot exist.

>I'd go on but it's been a long day and I'm in no mood for this petty
>bickering.

	Yes, it has been a long day, and I'm in the mood to blow large
holes in things, but my boss won't let me go to Boston (well, burlington)
just yet.

	I just hope you're a better programmer than those schmucks at where
we bought our latest peice of shit e-commerce package.
--
"To sum up: The entire structure of antitrust statutes in this country is a
jumble of economic irrationality and ignorance. It is a product: (a) of a
gross misinterpretation of history, and (b) of rather na�ve, and certainly
unrealistic, economic theories." Alan Greenspan, "Anti-trust"
http://www.ecosystems.net/mgering/antitrust.html

Petro::E-Commerce Adminstrator::Playboy Ent. Inc.::petro@playboy.com