Well, Libertarians, here's your chance to defend Enron

[Hoek]

No, it's better to live on your feet than die on your knees

Are you saying that you'd rather die than live without liberty or property temporarily? Should people in non-democratic countries just kill themselves? Should bums kill themselves? In the end, life is the base of humanity, not freedom or property. Don't get me wrong-I support freedom and property rights, but only so far as they don't endanger my life. Why are we in Afghanistan? We're fighting for survival, not freedom.

[Wraith]

--"Two centuries of constitutional law says otherwise."

Half a century, maybe. The first century and a half agreed with me. Then we got to the point where the President could effectively threaten the Supreme Court, and the slow erosion became a quick one.

--"Ever hear of the phrase "your right to swing your fists ends at my nose?""

Yes, and it's not my fault many people do not understand the definition of "right".
This ties back in to that whole public education thing...

--"If I had the choice between living and nowing I wouldn't be absolutely free all that time and having dying for liberty, I'll take life."

Up to you. There's only so much I'm willing to put up with before it becomes too much. It's just a cost/benefit thing. The government is walking a fine line, trying to get people conditioned to as much slavery as possible, without pushing the change fast enough that people get fed up and push back.

Wraith
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations"
-- James Madison

[Imran Siddiqui]

Should people in non-democratic countries just kill themselves?

Shouldn't they revolt or try to gain more freedom?

If you were slave would you take it because that is what you were, or would you revolt?

[Hoek]

I think I agree with Wraith's assessment that a C/B anaysis would have to be made. The failure of the majority of slave revolts to work is a pretty clear indication of how hard it would be to accomplish, and even then there would be a high likelihood that you would die. If you're a slave, there is always the possibility that you will one day be free. If you die, there is no hope for you. It's kind of like what Patton said: it isn't heroic to die for your country, it's heroic to live for your country. Notions of glory and martyrdom are of no relevence to me: if they die, they won't be of any use to anybody or anything, and won't be able to enjoy their "martyrdom."

A good example of my thoughts on this are the diamond trade. How ironic is it that that it takes the lives of about 5 or 6 children for a man to give a woman an engagement ring to symbolize their love. The inherent immorality is that liberty and property in these cases cause tremendous loss of life, and the liberty and property rights attatched to the diamond trade should come second to the right of those children to live.

[Imran Siddiqui]

A good example of my thoughts on this are the diamond trade. How ironic is it that that it takes the lives of about 5 or 6 children for a man to give a woman an engagement ring to symbolize their love. The inherent immorality is that liberty and property in these cases cause tremendous loss of life, and the liberty and property rights attatched to the diamond trade should come second to the right of those children to live.

Liberty and property only INDIRECTLY ends the life of these children. They, or their parents, consent to sending them in the diamond mines. Those children dying is an indirect cause of the demand for diamonds.

[Vanguard]

A good example of my thoughts on this are the diamond trade. How ironic is it that that it takes the lives of about 5 or 6 children for a man to give a woman an engagement ring to symbolize their love

5 or 6 children? Each? So that means, like, what? 50 or 60 million children die in the diamond mines each year? How horrible. And how utterly, utterly, utterly unbelievable. What do they do, fill the mines in with the bodies?

This discussion has passed my irrationality limit. And my limit isn't all that low either.

[Hoek]

No, the "dirty diamonds" account for about 15% of the world's diamond market. It may be an overstatement, but a diamond isnt worth a single life.

[Hoek]

And it isn't in the mines, it's being hacked to pieces by the diamond rebels.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Hoek
And it isn't in the mines, it's being hacked to pieces by the diamond rebels.

The what?! And even then, it is INDIRECT.

[The Eliminator]

Who is to say that a diamond isn't worth a life? I want a diamond studded Rolex, and if a million people die to get those stones out of the ground, what do I care? Seriously. This is where religion, other people's "ethics," and other people's "morals" interfere with my own utility - which is totally unacceptable.

Read a book or something, just quit coming up with boring red herrings.

[Roland]

Vanguard:

"But this is self-contradictory. If markets automatically adjust prices for information unreliability, then why didn't the market do so here?"

Because they considered the info to be reliable. It's a matter of misplaced trust. And while Enron claims "it did nothing illegal", I think that most of what they did was pure and simple fraud.

As for government oversight, I'd tend to be in favour of it in principle as it can reduce information/transaction cost - if the system works, which currently is not the case.

Wraith:

"Although if I'm remembering correctly, a corporation does require a government charter to exist"

But under natural law, if some people chose to associate, wouldn't they then be associated ?

"However, the current limited-liability laws on corporations is disturbing to me."

Ah, that's a separate issue. If I had to take a libertarian stance on this: Perfectly fine for voluntary contracts (creditors, suppliers etc), not for torts etc.

[Vanguard]

I suppose there could be some "threshold of government guaranteed trust" at work in the market. I don't know. I punt.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by The Eliminator
I want a diamond studded Rolex, and if a million people die to get those stones out of the ground, what do I care?

If you do not value other human life, then you have no claim to be ptrotrected from those who do not value you life. Mutual self-interest demands we repect each others' rights.

[Wraith]

--"The failure of the majority of slave revolts to work"

The trick is in the timing...
The American people haven't been disarmed yet, like most slaves are. We're starting from better odds than most, thanks to the founders of the country.
As it stands, I'm starting to get more active in politics. The Libertarian Party is the only chance we've got for a peaceful revolution right now.

--"The inherent immorality is that liberty and property in these cases cause tremendous loss of life,"

It isn't liberty or property that are causing the loss of life, it is some people's disregard for both the liberty and property of others that is the problem.

--"But under natural law, if some people chose to associate, wouldn't they then be associated ?"

As far as I'm concerned, yes, but the government doesn't seem to agree.

--"Perfectly fine for voluntary contracts (creditors, suppliers etc), not for torts etc."

That sounds much better. Of course, the ABA is pretty much running the government, so how likely is that?

Wraith
"It's all about the bling bling"
-- Saito ("Rurouni Kenshin" dub outtakes)

[Roland]

"Of course, the ABA is pretty much running the government"

ABA ?

About torts, it's not much of a problem as usually, the corporation will have sufficient funds. A problem are the silly amounts awarded as punitive damages, and the easy cop-out from that by bancruptcy. Which means that the those who seek those damages effectively expropriate the creditors, workers, suppliers etc who also have claims.