Re: Food labels and consumer information (was Re: Protesters swarm Calif. biotech meeting)

From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Jul 01 2003 - 19:09:32 MDT

  • Next message: Emlyn O'regan: "RE: Cryonics and uploading as leaps of faith?"

    --- Brett Paatsch <paatschb@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
    >
    > Rafal Smigrodzki writes:
    >
    > > ### ....Of course, the effectiveness of the legal system is
    > > impaired by the fact that the state owns and operates
    > > courts, instead allowing private courts to operate and
    > > compete.
    >
    > Interesting concept but how would it work?. Would it
    > require both parties voluntarily agreeing to acknowledge
    > the jurisdiction of the private court in some sort of contract
    > that the 'regular judiciary' would be duty bound to respect
    > in the absence of any excellent reason not too?

    Actually, most law here in the US today is practiced this way.
    Arbitration is the primary means for parties to minimize their legal
    costs. Even in cases where state courts have handed down verdicts, if
    the parties arbitrate a separate settlement, the state verdict can be
    set aside. The state judicial system, optimally, should only ajudicate
    cases where parties can't or won't go through arbitration. It should
    only be a safety net, like social security, unemployment security, and
    other social safety nets, and should not be freely accessible for those
    with means to pay for private adjudication.

    >
    > > So you have slow, expensive courts bound by
    > > statutes and regulations, but this is just another argument for
    > > the free market.
    >
    > I don't see how the free market can be given unfettered free
    > range without destroying itself. Like a fire that doesn't stay
    > in the fireplace, but burns the house down.

    How, exactly, would it destroy itself?

    >
    > Seem to me that some of the problems of globalise arise
    > because the free market is expected to work without the
    > rule of law being established first. The free market may allow
    > slavery, human rights abuses (safe work environment etc) and
    > the removal of the forms of institution that give societies order
    > if it is not checked to some extent. Imo anyway, I'd be
    > interested to see how an alternative view might run.

    A free market would not allow slavery, ipso facto. If workers are not
    free to leave employment, they are not in a free market. It is,
    however, the responsibility of employees to determine their own best
    long term rational self interest. In areas where exploitation of
    ignorance is possible by capital, collective bargaining via unions is a
    legitimate and libertarian means of raising up the awareness of the
    proletariat so that they can act as self-responsible individuals.

    It is rather obvious that those in our economy left most ignorant are
    those educated by the state apparatus. Whether this be at the hands of
    mercantilists looking to exploit or socialists looking to launch
    revolution (probably a bit of both), it is also rather obvious that
    even in the area of education, free markets produce the highest quality
    products and have the happiest workers.

    =====
    Mike Lorrey
    "Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                                        - Gen. John Stark
    Blog: Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com
    Flight sims: http://www.x-plane.org/users/greendragon/
    Pro-tech freedom discussion:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/exi-freedom

    __________________________________
    Do you Yahoo!?
    SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
    http://sbc.yahoo.com



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 01 2003 - 19:18:42 MDT