[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: public vs private

Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
Cprakash wrote:

 > Every corporation has a vested interest in listening to you. Have  > you
 > read "business@the speed of thought" ( by bill gates ) It gives you  > an
 > example of what i am saying.

i can't help thinking that such writings will only be self serving
hence not a particularly credible, though if you care to summarize
i'll try to respond.

 > >see my other post on the possibilities of profitable public
 > instituitions.
 > Some of those examples violate basic human rights. Human slavery is
 > definitely  anti-libertarian. ( selling of babies ).

precisely. but the objective of a corporation is not protection
of human rights or human liberty. corporate actions are driven
solely by the objective of [material] profit. note that where
explicit slavery does exist it is motivated by the seeking of
material profit. so it would seem that the 'market' does not
always lead to outcomes that are considered desireable- even by you.

 > Other examples of
 > private military has been tried out in limited contexts in previous
 > eras. It has worked ( source : ludwig von mises institute )

and there are plenty of examples of private militaries that
do not lead to outcomes that benefit the majority- though
they may be great for the controlling minority.

 > >i believe the generally accepted definition of profit is  > >financial-
 > >certainly in the context we're discussing- the corporation.
 > I believe in a society in which everyone can pursue his happines
 > without being molested and taxed. Each one of us should be willing  > to
 > live our lives if we respect the simlar rights of others. Pursuit  > of
 > happiness can be non-monetary. But, these are subjective and hence  > the
 > government should not indulge in these. Hospitals can be run by
 > charity organisations ( voluntary contributions as opposed to
 > involuntary taxes ). The government should handle the law and  > little
 > more. (It can charter private police)

this is confusing- on the one hand we should not be taxed,
on the other we should have a government to 'handle the law'?
the 'law' could cover a great deal- to the point that we could
justify the status quo under this directive. please explain.

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/