[Moonbase-discuss] Re: Vol 1 #22 - Unfettered free enterprise
jnasiatka@inhale.com
jnasiatka@inhale.com
Wed, 15 May 2002 09:37:36 -0700
This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--=_alternative 005B4EE288256BBA_=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Ok, I need to drop my .02 in here. I think what Mr Alexandr is getting at
here, is not so much condemnation
of the *idea* of free and unfettered capitalism, but the practical
applications of it. I don't know if America has
truly had totally free capitalism by the pure definition, but if not,
we've come extremely close. Look at the history
of the railroad empires, the early oil industry, the early food/drug
industries - all of these rose to power during
the industrial revolution when we had a ton of laissez-faire action going
on. There were massive amounts of
corruption, abuses of power, and abuses of people, which finally caused
the government to have to step
in and do things like create anti-trust laws, the FDA etc...
The idea of a total free market is really appealing, as is the idea of
pure communism. Both, in application
have been shown to be lacking because of human frailties such as greed and
a lack of (or willingness to
ignore) ethical considerations. Hence, the Enron/Anderson examples, the
massive amounts of toxics in
landfills, brownfieds and superfund sites (not to mention the endless
lawsuits to try and get the originators of
the mess to clean it up)
It's not so much that we need total regulation of space such that NASA et
al. is the *only* place one can go to,
but we need to make sure that when we go (either as a public or private
venture) we do it correctly with a level
of ethical considerations such that we don't screw things up long term.
Figuring out how to ensure that is the hard
part.
Regards
Jamie
On Tue, 14 May 2002 22:18:34 -0400, JonAlexandr@aol.com wrote:
>I'm not condemning capitalism (if that's what you really mean), but like
any system
>in a democracy, there should be checks and balances. Whatever complaints
one
>may have about government interference, our government is supposed to be
a
>democracy.
Well, close. A representative republic, which is supposed to be more
resistant than pure democracy to the "tyranny of the masses." I think
tyranny is a misnomer here - idiocy is better - but anyway, the
ability of the masses in a pure democracy to make sweeping changes
with little reflection or wisdom. Prohibition is the best example I
know.
Of course, the war on drugs is an example of just the opposite;
conservative politicians keep it going, even though it isn't working
and can't work. America waging war on a market driven system? Hello?
Sigh...
>But I maintain that "unfettered free enterprise" IS a cancer, just like
unfettered
>mitosis is a cancer.
A month ago, I would have agreed with you, at least that that
potential existed. But my libertarian friends tell me America has
never had unfettered free enterprise, so we don't know what the
effects are. Though it seems to me poverty is the price we're paying
for capitalism, and I don't care for poverty.
I do not have a solution, but I greatly admire the problem. Concord
abstains, courteously.
-R
--
"You told him about the statue?
I can't believe you told him about the statue."
-- William T. Riker
_______________________________________________
Moonbase-discuss mailing list
Moonbase-discuss@themoonbase.org
http://www.themoonbase.org/mailman/listinfo/moonbase-discuss
--=_alternative 005B4EE288256BBA_=
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Ok, I need to drop my .02 in here. I think what Mr Alexandr is getting at here, is not so much condemnation</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">of the *idea* of free and unfettered capitalism, but the practical applications of it. I don't know if America has</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">truly had totally free capitalism by the pure definition, but if not, we've come extremely close. Look at the history</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">of the railroad empires, the early oil industry, the early food/drug industries - all of these rose to power during</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">the industrial revolution when we had a ton of laissez-faire action going on. There were massive amounts of</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">corruption, abuses of power, and abuses of people, which finally caused the government to have to step</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">in and do things like create anti-trust laws, the FDA etc...</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">The idea of a total free market is really appealing, as is the idea of pure communism. Both, in application</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">have been shown to be lacking because of human frailties such as greed and a lack of (or willingness to</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">ignore) ethical considerations. Hence, the Enron/Anderson examples, the massive amounts of toxics in </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">landfills, brownfieds and superfund sites (not to mention the endless lawsuits to try and get the originators of</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">the mess to clean it up)</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">It's not so much that we need total regulation of space such that NASA et al. is the *only* place one can go to,</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">but we need to make sure that when we go (either as a public or private venture) we do it correctly with a level</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">of ethical considerations such that we don't screw things up long term. Figuring out how to ensure that is the hard</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">part.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Regards</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Jamie</font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>On Tue, 14 May 2002 22:18:34 -0400, JonAlexandr@aol.com wrote:<br>
</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>>I'm not condemning capitalism (if that's what you really mean), but like any system<br>
>in a democracy, there should be checks and balances. Whatever complaints one<br>
>may have about government interference, our government is supposed to be a<br>
>democracy.<br>
</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>Well, close. A representative republic, which is supposed to be more<br>
resistant than pure democracy to the "tyranny of the masses." I think<br>
tyranny is a misnomer here - idiocy is better - but anyway, the<br>
ability of the masses in a pure democracy to make sweeping changes<br>
with little reflection or wisdom. Prohibition is the best example I<br>
know.<br>
</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>Of course, the war on drugs is an example of just the opposite;<br>
conservative politicians keep it going, even though it isn't working<br>
and can't work. America waging war on a market driven system? Hello?<br>
Sigh...<br>
</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>>But I maintain that "unfettered free enterprise" IS a cancer, just like unfettered<br>
>mitosis is a cancer.<br>
</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>A month ago, I would have agreed with you, at least that that<br>
potential existed. But my libertarian friends tell me America has<br>
never had unfettered free enterprise, so we don't know what the<br>
effects are. Though it seems to me poverty is the price we're paying<br>
for capitalism, and I don't care for poverty.<br>
</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>I do not have a solution, but I greatly admire the problem. Concord<br>
abstains, courteously.<br>
</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>-R</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt><br>
</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>--<br>
"You told him about the statue?<br>
I can't believe you told him about the statue."<br>
-- William T. Riker<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Moonbase-discuss mailing list<br>
Moonbase-discuss@themoonbase.org<br>
http://www.themoonbase.org/mailman/listinfo/moonbase-discuss</tt></font>
<br>
<br>
--=_alternative 005B4EE288256BBA_=--