We have courts to interpret that legislation. So, legislation attempts to define the meaning of words 'unjust' and 'unfair'Big issue righ here. There is a difefrence between a law and legislation. The government is a territorial monopolist on coercion and decision-making (jusrisdiction). As with any monopoly, the quality and quantity of it's services (security and justice) tends to decline while the costs will rise. Especially if the government is democratic. But that's beside the point. If you believe that any legislation anacted by the people holding the gun is the same as law or that truth and justice can be determined by majority vote, you may have a good practical point. But then what sense does it make having a philosophical discussion?
the Act exists to prevent the 'small guy' from being coerced by 'the big guy'. Coerced means a person using violence or threat of violence (or fraud) against another person - basically making him act against his will. If I hit you with a stick and took your wallet, that means I coerced you. If a tree branch fell on you and I am offering to help you in exchange for your wallet, I may be immoral but not coercive. I did not contribute to your hardship. It was purely your decision to stand where the branch would fall.
The regular criminal law exists to prevent the 'small guy' from being coerced by 'the big guy', not the Act.
We live in a world where are are dependant on an expectation of minimum standards all of the time...Your example deals with a sudden end to a system that has been growing for the last hundred years. Sure - it would be a difficult adjustemnt, just like quitting drugs is a difficult adjustment. Still, it's hardly an argument for drugs being beneficial. For millenia before that the civilisation seemed to work just fine without such an act. People were naturally inquisitive of the new things before the welfare state corrupted them into not thiniking.
The existance of this legislation allows us to do more important things than read the fine print on every service we contract for which may have some bearing on our health.The proprietor is 100% dependent on serving his customers and he knows the situation intimately. The bureaucrat is not. It is impossible to create the legislation that would cover all the cases and all the possible changes. There is always new knowlege or knowlege in which experts differ. How would a bureaucrat make the correct decision unless he is a god? Any such decision will be at best arbitrary.
Anyway, such legislation is equivalent to taking away fredom and property - by taking (partial) control of people's bodies and property. Any government that can arbitrary do that (vote or bureucrat's decision) is already way too dangerous. It's a monopoly, so it's bound to grow untill it takes away all freedom and property.
It is not beyond the bounds of belief that rather than competing, all companies (let's use bus transport again) will have the exclusionWithout the government involvement, cartels and monopolies do not work and never did. It's a bit complex economic subject to cover in a paragraph.
The government is already a monopoly anyway, and people who have no moral scruples have a huge advanatge in taking control over it if it is a democracy, so that is a bigger reason for concern.
Speaking of the worst cases, consider those:
- If a proprietor is willing to cut corners and rely on a customer not reading fine script, as in your example, what makes you think he will not be able to find a way around a legislation that was written few years ago? Only competition would keep his on his toes every day, not the law.
- A proprietor may be willing to actually break a law anyway - and will probably not be caught.
- A scoundrel may as well become a politician as a bad businessman and create faulty, harmfull legislation - to favor some special influencem etc.
- A customer that cannot afford a legitimate service because it is priced too high due to legislation will use a black-market provider against whom he has no protection whatsoever.
Taking the bus example - I would frankly prefer to have all my limbs rather than to receive an insurance payout The bus is not your right. Take a competitor's bus or whatever you took before the bus company opened it's business. And if that something has closed - it must be because this bus is better than whatever was there.
The assumption that the alternative is an acceptable alternative.Every thing on the free market was introduced volintarily because it was superior to whatever was there before. It did not mandate the closure of the old method - people have abandoned it gradually and voluntarily. If there was not much cause for government action before, there should be less now, not more.
because the bus company hired a driver who drives whilst drunk or which uses a bus with faulty brakes etc etcHappens every day despite laws. Competition is way better protector.
Now when people take out credit, they generally have no intention of going into arrears, but unforseen circumstances may make this happenYou can buy a cheap health insurance with a huge deduction - and that would be better than if you could afford no health insurance because the dedction was limited. Yes - you would lose you property.
Same as a person signing 40% may at worst lose his property.
The way that the Act deals with this is to say to the lender: You are only entitled to be compensated the actual loss you suffer. So that might be the value of the arrears plus a commercial rate of interest - say the base rate plus 2%.So the lender would not loan money to some people that really need it - like to buy a car to be able to get to a new job. Lender will not suffer much, the small guys will - either because they will get no loan or because they will go to a black market loan shark. You think 40% is the worst thing that could happen? How about broken knees. oh, I forgot - there must be a law forbidding to break people's knees. It must be real help.
Again, your theory depends on the customer having all the information he requires in order to make an informed decision. In the complex, technological world in which we live the customer often does not have access to the information or the expertise which allows him to make an informed decision. And such state only exists because the govt intervention skewed the picture. All the new products are introduced because they are better, not worse, than the previous one. They simplify life, not complicate it. And there is always a helpfull competitor or a private eccreditation agency that would point out the flaws.
Ever heard of a "moral hazard" concept? That is the clear case. The government makes it cheaper to not think, so all the temporary gain will be promptly compensated by more not thinking on the part of customers. Since the fast food is deemed safe by FDA, the people do not have to be cautious.
which will merely end up with corporate 'fiefdoms' in which a few will amass a most of the wealth and the many will merely be serfsCome on, that is plain silly. The corporation that displeased it's customers will be gone the next day. Customer is the souvereign in a free-market economy. Customer is the one deciding what and of which quality is sold.
After all, if a corporation is merely the representation of a collection of people who are engaged in a business enterprise, then a government is is just a a representation of larger group of people who decide the limits those corporations work within.Huge difference. The free market every day redistributes the control over the means of production from the people who failed to correctly predict and most efficiently satisfy the needs of the customers - to those who do it better. That is not an arbitrary process. Even if the decisions are made completely randomly, the right decision will be rewarded and the wrng one will go bankrupt.
The political process comes up with a soluition by whatever method and there is no real way to correct for errors. If anything, the errors get more funding rather than get discontinued.
Economic way is always voluntary, political way is always coercive. With economic way everyone may have his wish - even if it costs more in custom cases. In political way, everyone does what the government has decided.
You can get the same item in any country where free market exists. But where the law is concerned, every country is different. There is a huge differece between modern democratic Russia and USA. I would not call the difference 'merely' where the legislation is concerned.
Corporations are merely an artificial human construct and they should be our servants and not our masters.They always are - unless they buy the power of the goverment to avoid the free-market competition.
Could I interest you in reading a short book "Economics for real people" by Gene Callahan and then discussing whatever you want to argue? Otherwise you will spend more time talking to me than it would take you to read the book and you will not get as good an explanation.
Regards,
miko
