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

From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@optusnet.com.au)
Date: Tue Jul 01 2003 - 18:22:52 MDT

  • Next message: Brett Paatsch: "Re: Cryonics and uploading as leaps of faith?"

    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?

    This looks a bit to me like a clause in a contract to seek to
    get a problem mediated independently (and faster and less
    expensively if possible) before going, failing that, to the courts.

    > 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.

    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.

    Regards,
    Brett Paatsch



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 01 2003 - 18:29:45 MDT