Individual Rights and Prior Restraint

[Ardsgaine]

It would seem to tie those two things together you have to assume that trans-national corporations have the interests of humanity at heart and we know that's not true .

It doesn't matter if they do or not. All that matters is that they are prevented from violating individual rights.

By "unfettered" do you mean to do away with all tariffs, health regualtions, and environmental restrictions as well?

Yes. People have the right to life and property. If someone violates those rights, they should be subject to criminal charges, but I'm against all laws that place a prior restraint on economic activity. It's the same sort of reasoning used by those who say that people should be prevented from doing drugs because they might hurt someone while under the influence. If a person hurts someone else while under the influence, he deserves to be prosecuted, but the mass of drug users who do their drugs and hurt no one (but maybe themselves) should not be subject to prior restraint because of what some people might do.

 

[flavio]

So businesses should be able to both have unsafe working conditions and dump toxins in the air and water at will?

 

[Ardsgaine]

So businesses should be able to both have unsafe working conditions and dump toxins in the air and water at will?

Workplace conditions are determined by negotiations between labor and management.

If dumping toxins in the air or water results in demonstrable harm to others, then no, they can be charged with a crime and sued for civil damages.

 

[flavio]

So businesses should be able to both have unsafe working conditions and dump toxins in the air and water at will?

Workplace conditions are determined by negotiations between labor and management.

...and management has been notorious for creating dangerous working conditions when they can get away with it. The average guy that really needs the next paycheck doesn't have much leverage in negotiations.

If dumping toxins in the air or water results in demonstrable harm to others, then no, they can be charged with a crime and sued for civil damages.

Dumping toxins in the air and water creates a demonstrable harm to the air and water. Corporations are notorious for trying to get away with sickening amounts of pollution if they don't have rules to follow and soomeone to watch over them and do inspections.

Your ideas sound great in theory for some fantasy world, unfortunately we're stuck here in reality.

 

[ris]

sadly it seems that many corporations need regualtion to tell them how best to get rid of waste products. and if its not written into a regualtion then the prosection doesn't stop anyone else from doing it who thinks they might get away with it if no-one notices.

 

[Ardsgaine]

The average guy that really needs the next paycheck doesn't have much leverage in negotiations.

Where do you get that? I mean is that from personal experience, or is it from reading, or is it just an opinion you throw out to make your argument square with reality? I just don't see it. In the first place, the average guy can join with a bunch of other average guys to form a union, and unions have immense power in negotiations with management. In the second place, it has never been in management's best interest to kill off their workers. If conditions are truly dangerous, and can be shown to be dangerous, then management can be moved to do something, even if it's just by one guy speaking his mind.

Socialists have this image of coprorate managers as the personification of all evil in the human race. Somehow, though, they think they can pluck a person off the street, put him in a government bureacracy with the full force of government coercion behind him and he'll behave like a saint. They think that corporate managers are conscienceless and rapacious, while government bureacrats are benevolent and helpful. Which one of the two, though, actually depends on the good will of the people he serves for his position? Which one is more compelled by his own best interests to act in the best interests of his customers? Which one of them has no recourse to legalized coercion to compel his customers to behave in certain ways?

Dumping toxins in the air and water creates a demonstrable harm to the air and water.

I don't care about harm to air and water. In the first place, I'm not sure what it means to talk about 'harm' to an inanimate object. In the second place, even if there might be some sense in which they could be said to be 'harmed', inanimate objects are not the sorts of things that have rights. People have rights. If a person is harmed then he has the right to recourse via the law. He doesn't have the right to control another person's actions on the outside chance that he might be harmed by him.

sadly it seems that many corporations need regualtion to tell them how best to get rid of waste products. and if its not written into a regualtion then the prosection doesn't stop anyone else from doing it who thinks they might get away with it if no-one notices.

What you're describing is a very short-sighted approach to business practice. I wouldn't try to argue that no businessmen ever take that approach. I don't think it's as prevalent as you think it is. Businesses are used to thinking and planning for long-term success. If you have toxins to dispose of, then what you do is put them somewhere where they won't come back to bite you in the ass 20-40 yrs down the road.

You've probably heard of the Love Canal. It was supposed to be one of the worst chemical spills in history. What you may not know is that the chemicals had been stored in the ground completely according to government regulations. The land was later transferred to the local schoolboard by the company that owned the site, because the schoolboard wanted it for a playground and they did a little arm-twisting to get it. The company explained to them that it was a chemical dump site. They took them out to the site, sunk test wells and showed them exactly what was there. They told them that any excavation on the land would rupture the containment. Since the playground would not involve excavation, the company went ahead with the transfer. Later, the schoolboard transferred a large portion of the land to the local government for a housing development. That's when the containment was ruptured and the chemicals started leaking.

Lesson: Who is more trustworthy, your local corporation or your local government? I wouldn't put blind trust in either, but I believe that governments have more incentive to act in short-sighted ways than corporations.

One of the problems with government regulations is that it actually encourages businesses to behave short-sightedly. They don't have to ask themselves, what's the best long-term solution to this problem? They just have to fulfill the letter of the regulations, and then they're absolved of any consequences if the regulations turns out to be flawed.

Another problem is that regulations prevent innovations. A corporation might come up with a new and innovative way to dispose of toxic waste that neutralizes it completely. Because it's not the proscribed method of disposal, though, they can't use it. Also, there's little incentive to develop such solutions if you have to battle a government bureacracy to implement them.

Your ideas sound great in theory for some fantasy world, unfortunately we're stuck here in reality.

I guess time will tell whose theory is more suited for a fantasy world. We're the freest country on earth, and also the richest. I don't think that's a coincidence.

 

[flavio]

The average guy that really needs the next paycheck doesn't have much leverage in negotiations.

Where do you get that? I mean is that from personal experience, or is it from reading, or is it just an opinion you throw out to make your argument square with reality? I just don't see it. In the first place, the average guy can join with a bunch of other average guys to form a union, and unions have immense power in negotiations with management. In the second place, it has never been in management's best interest to kill off their workers. If conditions are truly dangerous, and can be shown to be dangerous, then management can be moved to do something, even if it's just by one guy speaking his mind.

You seem to have an awful lot of faith in the goodness of corporate management. I'm not talking about killing off workers, I'm talking unsafe conditions that could result in injuries or health concerns down the road.

You want everyone to have faith in management that they will put these concerns ahead of financial gain and I think that's ridiculous and unrealistic.

The average worker (who most likely isn't in a union) can be replaced fairly easily, especially in todays economy. If he speaks up about a dangerous condition that would cost the company a million dollars to fix, they could easily say "if you don't like it, find another job".

By your logic maybe we should get rid of personal safety and traffic laws and just trust everyone to do the right thing too?

Socialists have this image of coprorate managers as the personification of all evil in the human race.

No, I would say people living in the real world have an image of managers concentrating on making money for their company.

Look at this article. This sadly is how trans-national corporations can act sometimes.

Somehow, though, they think they can pluck a person off the street, put him in a government bureacracy with the full force of government coercion behind him and he'll behave like a saint. They think that corporate managers are conscienceless and rapacious, while government bureacrats are benevolent and helpful. Which one of the two, though, actually depends on the good will of the people he serves for his position? Which one is more compelled by his own best interests to act in the best interests of his customers? Which one of them has no recourse to legalized coercion to compel his customers to behave in certain ways?

The difference is one has financial gain of the company as his primary concern and the other doesn't. It's one of those situations where you need an unbiased third party to help keep everyone honest. It's really not so complicated.

Dumping toxins in the air and water creates a demonstrable harm to the air and water.

I don't care about harm to air and water.

This is where the Ayn Rand theories really start to show the crazy. Living things happen to use this air and drink this water. Do I really need to make that connection?

If you don't see how an inanimate object can be harmed then go run your car into a wall at speed and tell me how it works afterwards. You need to take care of automobile so it will continue to take you places, you need to take care of the world around you so it remains livable.

sadly it seems that many corporations need regualtion to tell them how best to get rid of waste products. and if its not written into a regualtion then the prosection doesn't stop anyone else from doing it who thinks they might get away with it if no-one notices.

What you're describing is a very short-sighted approach to business practice.

...the Ayn Rand theories are some of the most short-sighted I've ever seen. If implemented, I could see disaster coming before a year or two was over.

I wouldn't try to argue that no businessmen ever take that approach. I don't think it's as prevalent as you think it is. Businesses are used to thinking and planning for long-term success. If you have toxins to dispose of, then what you do is put them somewhere where they won't come back to bite you in the ass 20-40 yrs down the road.

You've probably heard of the Love Canal. It was supposed to be one of the worst chemical spills in history. What you may not know is that the chemicals had been stored in the ground completely according to government regulations. The land was later transferred to the local schoolboard by the company that owned the site, because the schoolboard wanted it for a playground and they did a little arm-twisting to get it. The company explained to them that it was a chemical dump site. They took them out to the site, sunk test wells and showed them exactly what was there. They told them that any excavation on the land would rupture the containment. Since the playground would not involve excavation, the company went ahead with the transfer. Later, the schoolboard transferred a large portion of the land to the local government for a housing development. That's when the containment was ruptured and the chemicals started leaking.

Lesson: Who is more trustworthy, your local corporation or your local government? I wouldn't put blind trust in either, but I believe that governments have more incentive to act in short-sighted ways than corporations.

I think that's a ridiculous conclusion to come to. Do you really try to learn lessons from isolated incidents? Do you think there is some shortage of incidents where governments have caught companies disposing of chemicals improperly? Learn a lesson from that real quick.

One of the problems with government regulations is that it actually encourages businesses to behave short-sightedly. They don't have to ask themselves, what's the best long-term solution to this problem?

Yes, they do. More so than if there where no regulations.

They just have to fulfill the letter of the regulations, and then they're absolved of any consequences if the regulations turns out to be flawed.

Where they would have much less of a chance at any consequences if there were no regulations.

Another problem is that regulations prevent innovations. A corporation might come up with a new and innovative way to dispose of toxic waste that neutralizes it completely. Because it's not the proscribed method of disposal, though, they can't use it. Also, there's little incentive to develop such solutions if you have to battle a government bureacracy to implement them.

Is that just an opinion you throw out to make your argument square with reality? What makes you think that if a corporation came up with a way to neutralize toxic waste completeley that it would be any problem to get it approved?

Your ideas sound great in theory for some fantasy world, unfortunately we're stuck here in reality.

I guess time will tell whose theory is more suited for a fantasy world. We're the freest country on earth, and also the richest. I don't think that's a coincidence.

What are you saying? We're the freest and richest while NONE of your theories are in place and that's no coincidence?

Are you trying to prove yourself wrong there?

 

[Ardsgaine]

What am I supposed to do at this point? Take your one-sentence replies and write a dissertation to refute each one of them? No thanks.

The heart of the matter is: does the state have the right to initiate force against a person before any crime has been committed, just because it thinks he might commit a crime? All you have offered in favor of the 'pro' position is the claim that, left to their own devices, businessmen will commit crimes. Someone could argue that some other segment of society is likely to commit crimes and should be regulated by prior restraint laws. Imagine the outrage if it were claimed that young black males should be subject to curfews, prevented from owning weapons, and subjected to spontaneous searches by regulatory inspectors. It's precisely the same argument, but such actions directed against businessmen are accepted because everyone knows what rotters they are. Both arguments are based on a prejudice, but the prejudice against businessmen is so ingrained that it doesn't register as such in your mind.

As I've already said, I don't have 'faith' in businessmen. I don't have 'faith' in any group of people. There will always be people who will commit crimes, and they will come from every walk of life. The question is whether you want a government that initiates force against people it suspects might commit crimes, or one that only uses force in retaliation when a crime has been committed. I believe that it is always immoral to initiate the use of force, whether it's done by government or by an individual.

the Ayn Rand theories are some of the most short-sighted I've ever seen.

Just out of curiosity, which of her books have you read?

 

[flavio]

What am I supposed to do at this point? Take your one-sentence replies and write a dissertation to refute each one of them? No thanks.

The heart of the matter is: does the state have the right to initiate force against a person before any crime has been committed, just because it thinks he might commit a crime? All you have offered in favor of the 'pro' position is the claim that, left to their own devices, businessmen will commit crimes. Someone could argue that some other segment of society is likely to commit crimes and should be regulated by prior restraint laws.

Yes, that's why we have laws against murder, breaking and entering, assault, robbery, etc. People need to know that if they do these things there will be consequences.

As I've already said, I don't have 'faith' in businessmen. I don't have 'faith' in any group of people. There will always be people who will commit crimes, and they will come from every walk of life. The question is whether you want a government that initiates force against people it suspects might commit crimes, or one that only uses force in retaliation when a crime has been committed. I believe that it is always immoral to initiate the use of force, whether it's done by government or by an individual.

So again we should get rid of laws against murder, robbery, assault, etc?

the Ayn Rand theories are some of the most short-sighted I've ever seen.

Just out of curiosity, which of her books have you read?

I've been reading the website. I have a copy of Atlas Shrugged here that someone gave me, but my interest is fading quick.

 

[ris]

if prior restraint is somehting to be avoided then i assume that you are against the build up against iraq. obviously he should be allowed, without regualtion as regulation is bad, build up any weapons he wants and action only taken when he uses them.

as an aside - i am reading 'the fountainhead' at the moment, it was a present from a friend in the us. its taking me a while to get going with it, mainly because the history is innaccurate and i've just finished a history of modern architecture book which is making me notice the flaws a little too much.

 

[Ardsgaine]

if prior restraint is somehting to be avoided then i assume that you are against the build up against iraq. obviously he should be allowed, without regualtion as regulation is bad, build up any weapons he wants and action only taken when he uses them.

No. I'm against the initiation of force. Saddam has already initiated the use of force against his people and against his neighbors. He encourages the suicide bombings in Israel by paying a bounty to the families of suicide bombers. While it's not our job to police outside our own borders, if a man like Saddam is attempting to get his hands on weapons that he could use against us, we have the right (and the responsibility to ourselves) to stop him before he has the chance.

Prior restraint regulations do not aim at a specific person who poses a specific threat. They are aimed at a class of people regardless of innocence or guilt.

as an aside - i am reading 'the fountainhead' at the moment, it was a present from a friend in the us. its taking me a while to get going with it, mainly because the history is innaccurate and i've just finished a history of modern architecture book which is making me notice the flaws a little too much.

Cool. It's not meant to be historical fiction. That wasn't her genre.

 

[flavio]

This "initiation of force" I think is something that needs cleared up. Having health, safety, and pollution guidelines is not "initiating force". It is establishing guidelines for proper conduct and business parctice.

The same way we have regualtions against murder, robbery, and running red lights for individuals.

 

[Ardsgaine]

So again we should get rid of laws against murder, robbery, assault, etc?

I think you're misunderstanding what I mean by prior restraint. Let me see if I can clarify by example: It should be against the law to commit murder. If a restaurant owner serves a customer bad meat and brings about his death, then he has broken the law (whether this is manslaughter and what degree, I don't know-- I'm not a lawyer). Laws against murder are good and necessary. What's not good, nor necessary, is a whole barrage of laws specifying how the restauranteur should go about preventing his meat from going bad. It's up to the restaurant owner to make those decisions, and it's in his best interest from numerous angles to protect his reputation, his financial situation, and his freedom, by not killing off his customers.

Does that make it clearer what I'm saying?

 

[flavio]

I think we have a clear understanding of how meat needs to be handled to prevent it from going bad. So we have guidelines that restaraunts need to follow to insure this does not happen.

We also have a clear understanding of driving practices which will cause traffic accidents. So we have that regulated as well. We don't just have people running red lights all they want, and then wait for an accident before we take any action.

 

[Ardsgaine]

I think we have a clear understanding of how meat needs to be handled to prevent it from going bad.

Hahahahahaha! Spoken like a true statist.

"We know all that needs to be known about preserving and processing meat for a restaurant, and we'll tell you exactly what you need to do." Thank God for the government to tell us what to do. Where would we be without it?

So we have guidelines that restaraunts need to follow to insure this does not happen.

Those aren't guidelines, they're laws. If you break them, you get fined. If you fail to pay the fine, you go to jail. If you refuse to go to jail, you can be beaten and even shot. Behind those 'guidelines' is a gun. They're not suggestions, they're commandments.

We also have a clear understanding of driving practices which will cause traffic accidents. So we have that regulated as well. We don't just have people running red lights all they want, and then wait for an accident before we take any action.

Well, if roads were privately owned, as they should be, then rather than traffic laws, we would have traffic rules. You want to drive on the road, you follow the rules set by the owners to allow for the safe and efficient flow of traffic.

 

[flavio]

"We know all that needs to be known about preserving and processing meat for a restaurant, and we'll tell you exactly what you need to do."

It's just a matter of scientific fact. I think there's been research on the subject a few times.

Those aren't guidelines, they're laws. If you break them, you get fined. If you fail to pay the fine, you go to jail.

Good, if you put people at risk, there should be repurcussions.

Well, if roads were privately owned, as they should be, then rather than traffic laws, we would have traffic rules. You want to drive on the road, you follow the rules set by the owners to allow for the safe and efficient flow of traffic.

Spoken like a true wacko. Privately owned roads? What's going to keep anyone following these "rules" especially if they change every couple blocks.

 

[dan]

I think we have a clear understanding of how meat needs to be handled to prevent it from going bad.

Hahahahahaha! Spoken like a true statist.

"We know all that needs to be known about preserving and processing meat for a restaurant, and we'll tell you exactly what you need to do." Thank God for the government to tell us what to do. Where would we be without it?

you're fairly into cooking aren't you?

you know how to keep meat don't you?

how long was that ham knocking about in your place? you didn't get food poisioning and die did you?

did the governement tell you how to keep it? they didn't tell me... my mother did. i suspect her mother told her, and her mother told her.

i think we have a clear understanding of how meat needs to be handled to prevent it from going bad.

 

[Ardsgaine]

i think we have a clear understanding of how meat needs to be handled to prevent it from going bad.

And does everyone in the world do it in the exact same way? You don't suppose that there might be more than one way to end up at essentially the same place: no one dying of spoiled meat?

 

[Ardsgaine]

Spoken like a true wacko.

Well, alright... I guess we're done then.

 

[dan]

And does everyone in the world do it in the exact same way? You don't suppose that there might be more than one way to end up at essentially the same place: no one dying of spoiled meat?

i haven't got the faintest idea what your mum told you, but it seems she must have a pretty good method. i've no idea if it's the same as what my mum told me...

i imagine that we'd do pretty similar stuff with a hunk of meat we weren't going to eat for a couple of days, and one we weren't going to eat for a couple of months... but no doubt there's differences.

i never said that your mum and my mum knew the same processes, but that they managed to achieve the same goals... we're saying the same thing...

(notice i'm saying nothing about the huge argument you're having, just saying that we all seem to be able to keep meat without dying)