Frisco_Slug_Esq
On Strike!
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Posts
- 45,618
Let's begin from this basic premise as posited by so many of our good friends and fellow posters.
Business cannot be trusted to do the right thing; it is blinded by greed and this greed corrupts it therefore it must be regulated and over-lorded by government.
Business is made up of men. It can indeed be said that then if the business is corrupt, it is because the men are corrupt. Are all men corrupt? No. Is then all business corrupt? No. We know of many examples of business and men that we consider good, let me offer up the paragon that is Ben and Jerry's. So we see that not all business is corrupt. Shall we still say that all business must be regulated because some business and businessmen are corrupt? I think to say yes constitutes a wrong against the innocent and good. Is that our accepted notion of just jurisprudence? No, it is not.
What then of an industry? Can an entire industry made up of men and businesses be corrupt? Well, it is clear to see that only if all men and all businesses are corrupt can all of an industry be corrupt. Then again, it follows that regulating an industry to prevent corruption punishes innocent men and innocent businesses without the due process of law.
Does then the strict micro-regulation of an industry protect the citizen from the corruption of men and business? No, for what concern does the corrupt have for a law other than as an inconvenience to be gone around? It is the same as the macro-law (objective law which applies to the general circumstance) that you shall not assault another which is then embellished, for political gain, with the micro-law (subjective law which applies to the specific circumstance), you shall not assault another with a specific hate. Most reasonable men would admit that all but the most minute instances of assault occur without a measure of anger, another form of hate (by another name only). Therefore, it is sufficient only to have macro-law and just and equal access to the courts when one is damaged by the actions of another man, business, or industry.
In a market which is fair, one which does not punish the good in order to prevent the corrupt or punish them in advance of a crime or deceit. One might say it in this way, we don't round up and jail the ranks of the unemployed because we find that most all petty thieves are unemployed. It is easy to see that not all the unemployed are thieves. It is also easy to see that no matter the specificity of the law, men still steal. Death will not even deter need, even if we consider such need a petty and small one.
When we invite government into the micro-management of industry, we not only get no further protection, but we then also force business and government into an unholy alliance, for just as not all men, all business, and all industry are corrupt, neither is it true that all men, all government, or all micro-law is good and just. In fact, it follows that some must be corrupt and most likely in the same proportion as business for greed is not just the purview of wealth, but also of power. These are the problems with micro-law: the corruption of men, the corruption of politics, and the necessity of the good and the corrupt alike to form protective alliance from their new business partner. At the same time, the people lose its partner in justice.
When government makes a micro-law, it makes not a business decision, but it makes a political decision and it invites all parties to corrupt themselves or to be penalized by the truly corrupt. How is government going to make micro-law? It must employ experts from the field, academics, or political appointees. The first has experience and peers in the field. The second has theories and no experience. The third has goals and experience only in government. The expert is from the field and has the ears of his peer group and a standing to maintain in order to be accepted as an expert. The academic is untested in the field and owes his loyalty to the government for his appointment and his credentials to other academics. The crony owes his loyalty only to the appointer.
When government gets into the business of micro-law, then men get into the business of government. Honest men become corrupt men lest corrupt men bankrupt them in their greed. When government is in the business of macro-law, then two parties, the injured and the accused get to go into an impartial court and are given equal opportunity to present their claims. When government is in the business of micro-law the injured and the accused claims are assessed based on the politics of the moment, winners and losers are not judged on the basis of their claims, but on the power they have accrued with the government bench.
How do they accrue power? With expertise, with money, and with implied threat. The industry provides expertise to write the micro-regulation. They provide the campaign funds to get a fair hearing from the politician and when they don't realize a favorable outcome to the regulatory process, they shift their loyalty to the opposition politician. In this manner time, money and other resource is simply wasted and the citizen is then, no more protected for the laws are written by industry to favor industry, by academic theory and with political intent, none of which have a thing to do with justice and everything with corruption.
Government, which pays no price for being wrong is therefore a bad regulator of business. What then keeps the business form becoming corrupt? Objective law and the invisible hand of the market; the power of redress and the power to discriminate on the part of the consumer. Let's take the current obvious example, the BP Oil spill. Government did not prevent it. We see government was being bribed and advised by BP (the industry), that the regulations were simply inadequate, and the regulators were corrupted by the regulators and the indifference that seems to follow hand-in-hand with secure government employment. Government could help with clean-up and help with the justice due to the harmed citizens, but the citizens were not its partner and concern, business was. With the power of micro-law comes the encroachments of corruption in many forms of greed, not all, as pointed out before, of a profit nature.
(As an aside, with subjective law also comes the corruption of destruction as elements of the Eco-Left bribe and cajole the politician to hamper or even overtly harm the business, to become a virtual regulator itself based upon false expertise, academic theory and political outcome.)
And what of profit? In a free market with macro-law and an objective impartial court system, the harmed can enjoin with government to be made whole to the detriment of the business, but not of the industry. In a subjective court system of macro-law, government must consider more the needs of its partner lest its partner turn on it. In a free market, people discriminate against BP and they divest of its stock thus mitigating any gain from greed. In a regulated market, BP can mitigate damages by using the carrot-and-stick on its bedfellow. So the eventual outcome of the protection racket is that in one manner or another, the harm to BP is mitigated and spread out over the entire industry, innocent and all, as well as the people, the injured and the whole.
Under objective law, money, resource and people will flee BP, but not the government. BP will be punished sufficiently to prevent others from being corrupt.
Under subjective law, money, resource and people will simply flee in search of justice. BP and the government will remain unpunished with a diminished people in their bonds of corruption.
So it is clear to see, as pointed out in Federalist, that men will corrupt government as is the claim we are presented with that men will corrupt business. It is better for us to limit government and limit its corruption than it is to try and use government to prevent corruption for in the prevention their power grows and in proportion so does their corruption grow as factions of men begin to vie for their power, the honest and corrupt alike both in a sense of self-preservation and in the latter also that of greed. As their corruption grows there go all our protections from business as well as our government for once they have the power to micro-regulate an industry or a business, how soon before they turn on their fellow man?
Business cannot be trusted to do the right thing; it is blinded by greed and this greed corrupts it therefore it must be regulated and over-lorded by government.
Business is made up of men. It can indeed be said that then if the business is corrupt, it is because the men are corrupt. Are all men corrupt? No. Is then all business corrupt? No. We know of many examples of business and men that we consider good, let me offer up the paragon that is Ben and Jerry's. So we see that not all business is corrupt. Shall we still say that all business must be regulated because some business and businessmen are corrupt? I think to say yes constitutes a wrong against the innocent and good. Is that our accepted notion of just jurisprudence? No, it is not.
What then of an industry? Can an entire industry made up of men and businesses be corrupt? Well, it is clear to see that only if all men and all businesses are corrupt can all of an industry be corrupt. Then again, it follows that regulating an industry to prevent corruption punishes innocent men and innocent businesses without the due process of law.
Does then the strict micro-regulation of an industry protect the citizen from the corruption of men and business? No, for what concern does the corrupt have for a law other than as an inconvenience to be gone around? It is the same as the macro-law (objective law which applies to the general circumstance) that you shall not assault another which is then embellished, for political gain, with the micro-law (subjective law which applies to the specific circumstance), you shall not assault another with a specific hate. Most reasonable men would admit that all but the most minute instances of assault occur without a measure of anger, another form of hate (by another name only). Therefore, it is sufficient only to have macro-law and just and equal access to the courts when one is damaged by the actions of another man, business, or industry.
In a market which is fair, one which does not punish the good in order to prevent the corrupt or punish them in advance of a crime or deceit. One might say it in this way, we don't round up and jail the ranks of the unemployed because we find that most all petty thieves are unemployed. It is easy to see that not all the unemployed are thieves. It is also easy to see that no matter the specificity of the law, men still steal. Death will not even deter need, even if we consider such need a petty and small one.
When we invite government into the micro-management of industry, we not only get no further protection, but we then also force business and government into an unholy alliance, for just as not all men, all business, and all industry are corrupt, neither is it true that all men, all government, or all micro-law is good and just. In fact, it follows that some must be corrupt and most likely in the same proportion as business for greed is not just the purview of wealth, but also of power. These are the problems with micro-law: the corruption of men, the corruption of politics, and the necessity of the good and the corrupt alike to form protective alliance from their new business partner. At the same time, the people lose its partner in justice.
When government makes a micro-law, it makes not a business decision, but it makes a political decision and it invites all parties to corrupt themselves or to be penalized by the truly corrupt. How is government going to make micro-law? It must employ experts from the field, academics, or political appointees. The first has experience and peers in the field. The second has theories and no experience. The third has goals and experience only in government. The expert is from the field and has the ears of his peer group and a standing to maintain in order to be accepted as an expert. The academic is untested in the field and owes his loyalty to the government for his appointment and his credentials to other academics. The crony owes his loyalty only to the appointer.
When government gets into the business of micro-law, then men get into the business of government. Honest men become corrupt men lest corrupt men bankrupt them in their greed. When government is in the business of macro-law, then two parties, the injured and the accused get to go into an impartial court and are given equal opportunity to present their claims. When government is in the business of micro-law the injured and the accused claims are assessed based on the politics of the moment, winners and losers are not judged on the basis of their claims, but on the power they have accrued with the government bench.
How do they accrue power? With expertise, with money, and with implied threat. The industry provides expertise to write the micro-regulation. They provide the campaign funds to get a fair hearing from the politician and when they don't realize a favorable outcome to the regulatory process, they shift their loyalty to the opposition politician. In this manner time, money and other resource is simply wasted and the citizen is then, no more protected for the laws are written by industry to favor industry, by academic theory and with political intent, none of which have a thing to do with justice and everything with corruption.
Government, which pays no price for being wrong is therefore a bad regulator of business. What then keeps the business form becoming corrupt? Objective law and the invisible hand of the market; the power of redress and the power to discriminate on the part of the consumer. Let's take the current obvious example, the BP Oil spill. Government did not prevent it. We see government was being bribed and advised by BP (the industry), that the regulations were simply inadequate, and the regulators were corrupted by the regulators and the indifference that seems to follow hand-in-hand with secure government employment. Government could help with clean-up and help with the justice due to the harmed citizens, but the citizens were not its partner and concern, business was. With the power of micro-law comes the encroachments of corruption in many forms of greed, not all, as pointed out before, of a profit nature.
(As an aside, with subjective law also comes the corruption of destruction as elements of the Eco-Left bribe and cajole the politician to hamper or even overtly harm the business, to become a virtual regulator itself based upon false expertise, academic theory and political outcome.)
And what of profit? In a free market with macro-law and an objective impartial court system, the harmed can enjoin with government to be made whole to the detriment of the business, but not of the industry. In a subjective court system of macro-law, government must consider more the needs of its partner lest its partner turn on it. In a free market, people discriminate against BP and they divest of its stock thus mitigating any gain from greed. In a regulated market, BP can mitigate damages by using the carrot-and-stick on its bedfellow. So the eventual outcome of the protection racket is that in one manner or another, the harm to BP is mitigated and spread out over the entire industry, innocent and all, as well as the people, the injured and the whole.
Under objective law, money, resource and people will flee BP, but not the government. BP will be punished sufficiently to prevent others from being corrupt.
Under subjective law, money, resource and people will simply flee in search of justice. BP and the government will remain unpunished with a diminished people in their bonds of corruption.
So it is clear to see, as pointed out in Federalist, that men will corrupt government as is the claim we are presented with that men will corrupt business. It is better for us to limit government and limit its corruption than it is to try and use government to prevent corruption for in the prevention their power grows and in proportion so does their corruption grow as factions of men begin to vie for their power, the honest and corrupt alike both in a sense of self-preservation and in the latter also that of greed. As their corruption grows there go all our protections from business as well as our government for once they have the power to micro-regulate an industry or a business, how soon before they turn on their fellow man?
