Re: A Libertine Question (fwd)

Forwarded message:

> Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 19:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>
> Subject: Re: A Libertine Question (fwd)
> 
> > A reasonable person recognizes that such a business has two ways
> > of fulfilling its responsiblities. They can either submit to
> > regulation and quality control from the local municipality or
> > else they can hang signs about their place of business declaring
> > "Caveat Emptor: Our food may be tainted, eat at your own risk".
> > Which do you think is the more reasonable?
> 
> It would be nice if businesses were offered that choice.  I would
> choose the second, myself.  Only my sign would say, "Our food is
> guaranteed not tainted by the Acme insurance company, not some
> corrupt government."  The problem is, governments do not allow 
> businesses nor consumers to make that sort of choice.  With them 
> it's, "my way or the highway" (or harassment and jail actually).

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.

> Until Jim shows me a business that isn't owned and operated by
> people, I'll have to respectfully disagree.  Businesses are just
> people acting alone or in concert.  Actions are what count, not
> whether the action is of a pecuniary nature or not.

I own 2 businesses (CyberTects & Linux System Development Labs) and work for
another (Tivoli - IBM), none are equivalent to my person. Businesses are a
system of rules and procedures that one offers another person in exchange for
some other commodity. Saying a business has the same rights as a person is
equivalent to saying the Empire State Bldg. has civil rights because persons 
built it and occupy it. My dog has a better argument for civil rights than
any business, it breaths and shits. Would you seriously give my dog a vote?
I shure won't, and I won't support any business with rights.

                                                 Jim Choate

Corporations are state-created persons [legal definition of "person", not
colloquial vernacular]. They have some privileges which have surface 
resmblence to the rights of natural people. For example, they can "have 
standing" in a court to initiate a legal proceeding - in their own name, 
not that of an agent or employee or trustee.

Alan Horowitz <alanh@infi.net> writes:
> Corporations are state-created persons [legal definition of "person", not
> colloquial vernacular]. They have some privileges which have surface
> resmblence to the rights of natural people. For example, they can "have
> standing" in a court to initiate a legal proceeding - in their own name,
> not that of an agent or employee or trustee.

Corporations could also own property at the time when many "real" persons
could not. Corporations could also be granted monopoly rights by the state,
like an exclusive right to trade with a certain region.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

On Fri, 2 Aug 1996, Jim Choate wrote:

> 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.

> > 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.

> I own 2 businesses...none are equivalent to my person. 

So?  They are owned and operated by people.

> Businesses are a system of rules and procedures...

Made and enforced by PEOPLE.  Jim is begging the question.

> 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.)


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Fri, 2 Aug 1996, Jim Choate wrote:
> built it and occupy it. My dog has a better argument for civil rights than
> any business, it breaths and shits. Would you seriously give my dog a vote?
> I shure won't, and I won't support any business with rights.

     I bet your dog would vote better than a lot of people I know. 

Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@smoke.suba.com