|
Marc2b -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/10/2007 7:42:34 PM)
|
Well, this thread has wandered way off topic but nobody seems to be bitching about it so...
quote:
....no, but they should be compelled to make those machines safe. For drivers and passengers, but more importantly for pedestrians. In other words the car corproation does have an obligation to society at large, just as the chemical company have an obligation not to dump waste by schools.
As for the phone company it is clearly in society's best interests that cell phone coverage is maximised.
As I see it the question of government intervention raises two issues.
First, the phrase "in society’s best interest" could be used by the government to justify almost anything and the natural tendency of power is to seek increase. Considering the harm government can do, all the ways it can trample over people rights, we want to be very careful when giving it more power. I believe I have covered that sufficiently on this thread. The second issue is that all to often we do not consider the broader and long term effects of some new government law or regulation.
We could make cars a lot safer than they are now by having the government mandate all sorts of safety features but that will make them more expensive. This added expense will trickle down the market eventually making even used cars more expensive (for a time some lower income people will still have the older, less safe, cars to drive – assuming they are not banned from the road for not meeting new safety standards). We could make cars safer simply by mandating stronger (i.e. more steel, less plastic, heavier vehicles ), thus making them more crash resistant. This will also drive up fuel consumption (it is not, after all, a coincidence that lighter vehicles get better gas mileage than heavier ones – the government mandate for higher gas milage vehicles decreased auto safety). Increased fuel costs will also decrease how many people can afford own cars.
In other words, it’s a trade off. Increasing auto safety equals increasing auto expense which in turn equals decreasing availability of autos to lower income people. That of course will impact lower income peoples’ ability to find and hold a job (your job search is severely restricted if it has to be within walking distance). Of course not having a job can impact ones safety in all sorts of negative ways (and don’t forget that some poor people are now driving less safe, older cars).
So if we mandate some new safety feature in autos we in effect increase the safety of wealthier people at the expense of the safety and job prospects of poorer people. At risk of sounding snide, I would like to point out that it at this point in our narrative that certain segments of society will start squawking about uncaring (if not outright evil) car corporations not making cars that are affordable to lower class people – and they will often be the same people who demanded that the government increase safety standards in the first place. Of course, this is presuming that they notice the effect that their demands for government intervention had on poor people – many of them will have their attention focused on a new cause that they deem to require government intervention.
This is what I am trying to get people to understand. Everything is interconnected. Any action we take to make life safer or fairer for some people (or even all the people) might have that intended consequence but it will almost certainly have unintended, negative, consequences for other people. Sinergy can’t get decent cell phone service in the harbor. This pisses him off. He finds it inconvenient and less safe (and he is right on both counts). He is demanding that the government intervene on his behalf and mandate that cell service be extended to cover the entire country – because that will make life more convenient and safer for everybody. But it won’t. He is not considering that fulfilling such a mandate is likely to drive up the price of cellular service thus bringing it out of the affordable reach of others and thus decreasing their convenience and safety. In effect, he is demanding that the government play favorites and favor his convenience and safety at the expense of others. I believe that many people fail to understand that you just can’t wish certain conditions into existence (this is the fundamental flaw of socialism). Reality may have other plans.
Before I wrap up I want to make it clear that I am not accusing Sinergy, or any one else, of nefarious intent – I believe that he has the best of intentions in demanding government intervention. I am accusing him, and others, of not seeing the bigger picture.
quote:
However where i feel you and i really disagree is that you appear to see no difference between an individual rights and the rights of, say, IBM. In my opinion they are such different entities that the social rules governing them has to differ in order to achieve justice for all....including IBM.
I believe that Corporations have the same obligation to obey the law the same as the rest of us. I also believe, however, that they too have rights and that one of those rights is not to be micro-managed by the government. I believe this not only because this will likely have unintended negative consequences (that I have lengthily pointed out) as government tries to make everything fair for everybody, but because I also – simply – believe in freedom.
If I start up a new business and the government comes in and start micro-managing, in essence making me a clerk in their business – how does that make me free? If you or I want to enter into a contract with a cell phone company, if we a free to accept or reject that contract on the basis of our needs and preferences, why should they not be also?
|
|
|
|
